| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Ian Caulfield <ian(dot)caulfield(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: array_agg and array_accum (patch) |
| Date: | 2008-10-27 17:14:56 |
| Message-ID: | 20365.1225127696@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> How else will you tell an aggregate function whose result depends on the
> input order which order you want?
You feed it from a subquery that has ORDER BY. The only reason the spec
needs this kluge is their insistence that ORDER BY not be used in
subqueries. Now I grant that there's some basis in relational theory
for that stand, but they certainly feel free to ignore academic notions
of cleanliness everywhere else in the spec.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2008-10-27 17:16:11 | Re: [HACKERS] Hot Standby utility and administrator functions |
| Previous Message | Robert Treat | 2008-10-27 17:08:51 | Re: [HACKERS] Hot Standby utility and administrator functions |