| From: | Bruno Wolff III <bruno(at)wolff(dot)to> |
|---|---|
| To: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [BUGS] We are not following the spec for HAVING without GROUP |
| Date: | 2005-03-14 04:56:55 |
| Message-ID: | 20050314045655.GC30090@wolff.to |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Mar 13, 2005 at 23:24:18 -0500,
Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> wrote:
>
> I've noticed quite frequently scenarios where this idiom would be very handy.
> I usually either end up rewriting the query to have nested subqueries so I can
> push the grouping into the subquery. This doesn't always work though and
> sometimes I end up listing several, sometimes dozens, of columns like
> "first(x) AS x" or else end up
If someone did a naive implementation of first() and last() aggregates
for 8.1, is that something that would likely be accepted?
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Fuhr | 2005-03-14 05:00:14 | Re: BUG #1537: alter table statement |
| Previous Message | Greg Stark | 2005-03-14 04:24:18 | Re: [BUGS] We are not following the spec for HAVING without GROUP |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-03-14 05:00:11 | Re: [PERFORM] How to read query plan |
| Previous Message | Greg Stark | 2005-03-14 04:24:18 | Re: [BUGS] We are not following the spec for HAVING without GROUP |