From: | David Christensen <david(at)pgguru(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>, Andrey Borodin <x4mmm(at)yandex-team(dot)ru>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jelte Fennema-Nio <postgres(at)jeltef(dot)nl> |
Subject: | Re: [PATCH] GROUP BY ALL |
Date: | 2025-09-29 21:13:11 |
Message-ID: | 11763E31-BCCA-48C0-BA59-1062EE2C6525@pgguru.net |
Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> On Sep 29, 2025, at 3:58 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
> David Christensen <david(at)pgguru(dot)net> writes:
>>> Here is v7 with a stab at docs; fairly minimal at this point, but
>>> touching the two areas that are likely to need adjusting.
>
> I did some more word-smithing on the docs and pushed it.
>
>>> When
>>> adjusting the docs for sql-select, I noticed that the grammar also
>>> supports `GROUP BY ALL <grouping_elements>`, so I also added a test to
>>> ensure that this syntax is explicitly supported.
>
> +1, can't hurt.
>
>>> (It seems like it
>>> works as-is without further grammar adjustments, but I was a little
>>> worried when I first saw that fact... :D)
>
> Bison would have been vocal about it if you'd introduced any
> ambiguity. Still, I didn't feel like looking around to see if we
> already covered this syntax, and I agree it's close enough to being
> an issue to be worth covering.
>
> Thanks for the patch!
Great, thank you!
David
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jacob Champion | 2025-09-29 22:15:37 | Re: Support getrandom() for pg_strong_random() source |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2025-09-29 20:58:37 | Re: [PATCH] GROUP BY ALL |