Re: [PATCH] GROUP BY ALL

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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