| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Informatica-Cooperativa Cnel(dot) Oviedo" <informatica(at)coopovie(dot)com(dot)py>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Sugerencia de opcion |
| Date: | 2010-01-24 17:14:59 |
| Message-ID: | 27577.1264353299@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> 2009/1/22 Informatica-Cooperativa Cnel. Oviedo <informatica(at)coopovie(dot)com(dot)py>:
>> SELECT id, sum(salario) as SumaSalario
>> FROM salarios
>> GROUP BY id
>> HAVING SumaSalario>500;
> I've wished for that syntax once or twice myself, but I'm assuming
> there's a reason we haven't implemented it?
It's contrary to standard. There are some other reasons you can find
in the archives, too.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-01-24 17:22:25 | Re: How to use PG_DUMP? |
| Previous Message | Craig Ringer | 2010-01-24 16:34:09 | Re: Recursion in triggers? |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2010-01-24 17:22:03 | Re: commit fests |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-01-24 17:12:07 | Re: Resetting a single statistics counter |