Re: [HACKERS] Re: [SQL] MAX() of 0 records.

From: Philip Warner <pjw(at)rhyme(dot)com(dot)au>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Paul McGarry <paulm(at)opentec(dot)com(dot)au>, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: [SQL] MAX() of 0 records.
Date: 2000-07-10 00:24:30
Message-ID: 3.0.5.32.20000710102430.009bf510@mail.rhyme.com.au
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers pgsql-sql

At 14:35 9/07/00 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>
>so the construct is definitely not SQL-compliant. Maybe we should just
>forbid it. However, if you are joining against another table (which
>itself is not an SQL feature) then it seems like there is some potential
>use in it. What do people think of my implicit-GROUP-BY-ctid idea?
>That would basically say that the aggregate is computed over all the
>tuples that join to a single target tuple.

Sounds perfect to me...

----------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Warner | __---_____
Albatross Consulting Pty. Ltd. |----/ - \
(A.C.N. 008 659 498) | /(@) ______---_
Tel: (+61) 0500 83 82 81 | _________ \
Fax: (+61) 0500 83 82 82 | ___________ |
Http://www.rhyme.com.au | / \|
| --________--
PGP key available upon request, | /
and from pgp5.ai.mit.edu:11371 |/

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-bugs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2000-07-10 01:21:11 Re: [HACKERS] Re: [SQL] MAX() of 0 records.
Previous Message Tom Lane 2000-07-09 18:35:40 Re: [SQL] MAX() of 0 records.

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Chris Bitmead 2000-07-10 00:28:04 Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL vs. MySQL
Previous Message Philip Warner 2000-07-10 00:21:56 Re: Bug list?

Browse pgsql-sql by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2000-07-10 01:21:11 Re: [HACKERS] Re: [SQL] MAX() of 0 records.
Previous Message Tom Lane 2000-07-09 18:35:40 Re: [SQL] MAX() of 0 records.