Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Call for 7.5 feature completion

From: Jochem van Dieten <jochemd(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Call for 7.5 feature completion
Date: 2005-08-29 10:10:06
Message-ID: f96a9b830508290310265f5d9c@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On 29 Aug 2005 09:56:44 +0200, Harald Fuchs wrote:
> Christopher Kings-Lynne writes:
>>
>> Oh, and 'select rowid, * from table' which returns special rowid
>> column that just incrementally numbers each row.

I think you can pretty much do that already by defining your own
aggregate function. The obvious downside is that you need to put all
the other columns in the GROUP BY clause. There might be some
performance implications from the grouping, but I would presume that a
rowid is most usefull in a situation where you are sorting anyway.


I have to admit this part of the SQL spec is a bit over my head, but
isn't grouping on an <empty grouping set> essentially a no-op?
Implementing that would then take care of having to put all the
coulmns in the GROUP BY clause.


> Why?

Because, although rarely necessary, it is frequently convenient to
have such functionality on the server.

Jochem

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Andreas PflugDate: 2005-08-29 11:09:35
Subject: Re: dangling lock information?
Previous:From: Hannu KrosingDate: 2005-08-29 10:05:55
Subject: Re: dangling lock information?

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group