| From: | "Dann Corbit" <DCorbit(at)connx(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> |
| Cc: | "Kevin Brown" <kevin(at)sysexperts(dot)com>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: We are not following the spec for HAVING without GROUP |
| Date: | 2005-03-10 05:28:12 |
| Message-ID: | D425483C2C5C9F49B5B7A41F894415470559CD@postal.corporate.connx.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
-----Original Message-----
From: pgsql-hackers-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org
[mailto:pgsql-hackers-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org] On Behalf Of Tom Lane
Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2005 8:45 PM
To: Christopher Kings-Lynne
Cc: Kevin Brown; pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] We are not following the spec for HAVING without
GROUP
Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> writes:
>>> Comments? Can anyone confirm whether DB2 or other databases allow
>>> ungrouped column references with HAVING?
DB2 does not like it.
This runs and returns data:
> SELECT INFO5FILES.APAMT.DEBAMT FROM INFO5FILES.APAMT
SELECT statement run complete.
This fails to prepare:
> SELECT INFO5FILES.APAMT.DEBAMT FROM INFO5FILES.APAMT having 1 > 2
Column DEBAMT or function specified in SELECT list not valid.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2005-03-10 07:10:19 | NIST Test Suite |
| Previous Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2005-03-10 05:25:02 | Re: Information schema tweak? |