| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Jeevan Chalke <jeevan(dot)chalke(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, sean(dot)johnston(at)edgeintelligence(dot)com, Postgres-Bugs <pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: [BUGS] BUG #14890: Error grouping by same column twice using FDW |
| Date: | 2018-01-12 21:55:17 |
| Message-ID: | 20775.1515794117@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> I am fine with the patch. It introduces a lot of expected output diff,
> since we always deparse GROUP BY clause in positional notation. That's
> fine. There is no point in adding extra logic to use positional
> notation only when there are duplicate entries in the GROUP BY clause.
Yeah, agreed, particularly since that behavior has only been there since
10.0 anyway. Pushed with a few cosmetic adjustments (mostly, improving
shaky English in the comments in foreign_grouping_ok()).
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2018-01-12 22:06:12 | Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] BUG #14825: enum type: unsafe use? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2018-01-12 17:45:01 | Re: [BUGS] Improper const-evaluation of HAVING with grouping sets and subquery pullup |