From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>, David Christensen <david(at)pgguru(dot)net>, Jelte Fennema-Nio <postgres(at)jeltef(dot)nl> |
Subject: | Re: [PATCH] GROUP BY ALL |
Date: | 2025-09-26 14:11:55 |
Message-ID: | 4054709.1758895915@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org> writes:
> The initially proposed patch appears to have the right idea overall.
> But it does not handle more complex cases like
> SELECT a, SUM(b)+a FROM t1 GROUP BY ALL;
> (For explanation: GROUP BY ALL expands to all select list entries that
> do not contain aggregates. So the above would expand to
> SELECT a, SUM(b)+a FROM t1 GROUP BY a;
> which should then be rejected based on the existing rules.)
I thought I understood this definition, up till your last
comment. What's invalid about that expanded query?
regression=# create table t1 (a int, b int);
CREATE TABLE
regression=# SELECT a, SUM(b)+a FROM t1 GROUP BY a;
a | ?column?
---+----------
(0 rows)
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Nathan Bossart | 2025-09-26 14:15:25 | Re: splitting src/bin/scripts/vacuumdb.c |
Previous Message | Timur Magomedov | 2025-09-26 14:09:32 | Re: [WIP]Vertical Clustered Index (columnar store extension) - take2 |