| From: | Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | The Hermit Hacker <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org> |
| Cc: | monty(at)tcx(dot)se, Martin Ramsch <m(dot)ramsch(at)computer(dot)org>, MySQL mailing list <mysql(at)lists(dot)mysql(dot)com>, postgresql-general <pgsql-general(at)postgreSQL(dot)org>, randyboy <randyboy(at)whispers(dot)blackmist(dot)org>, Paul DuBois <paul(at)snake(dot)net>, Patrick Greenwell <patrick(at)stealthgeeks(dot)net>, Scott Perkins <2scott(at)bellsouth(dot)net>, mcgarry(at)tig(dot)com(dot)au |
| Subject: | Re: PostgreSQL vs Mysql comparison |
| Date: | 1999-10-07 03:17:19 |
| Message-ID: | 199910070317.XAA29008@candle.pha.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
> On Thu, 7 Oct 1999, Michael Widenius wrote:
>
> > As you may have seen on the postgreSQL list, crash-me was actually
> > right that postgreSQL didn't support -- comments and HAVING as
> > required by ANSI SQL. Isn't it nice that we help you fix your bugs?
>
> Actually, I believe Thomas did research on this point (or was it Tom?) and
> determined that HAVING w/o aggregates is *not* required by ANSI SQL ...
> could out point out where this requirement is listed? *raised eyebrow*
Seems we will downgrade it to a warning. Too many people misunderstand
HAVING vs. WHERE, so a nice warning would help new users.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle
maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Frank Mandarino | 1999-10-07 03:47:32 | Re: [GENERAL] btree index on a char(8) field (fwd) |
| Previous Message | The Hermit Hacker | 1999-10-07 02:47:15 | Re: PostgreSQL vs Mysql comparison |