Re: [BUGS] We are not following the spec for HAVING without GROUP

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Bruno Wolff III <bruno(at)wolff(dot)to>
Cc: Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [BUGS] We are not following the spec for HAVING without GROUP
Date: 2005-03-14 06:52:59
Message-ID: 5788.1110783179@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers

Bruno Wolff III <bruno(at)wolff(dot)to> writes:
> If someone did a naive implementation of first() and last() aggregates
> for 8.1, is that something that would likely be accepted?

For the purpose that Greg is suggesting, these would have no advantage
over min() or max() --- since the system wouldn't know how to optimize
them --- and they'd be considerably less standard. So my inclination
would be to say it's a waste of effort.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-bugs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2005-03-14 06:54:55 Re: BUG #1537: alter table statement
Previous Message Tom Lane 2005-03-14 06:49:04 Re: [BUGS] We are not following the spec for HAVING without GROUP

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Hannu Krosing 2005-03-14 07:01:09 Re: Raw size
Previous Message Tom Lane 2005-03-14 06:49:04 Re: [BUGS] We are not following the spec for HAVING without GROUP