| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Informatica-Cooperativa Cnel(dot) Oviedo" <informatica(at)coopovie(dot)com(dot)py> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Sugerencia de opcion |
| Date: | 2010-01-24 14:54:21 |
| Message-ID: | 603c8f071001240654t11884cc0kae1f0d1907c63e38@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
2009/1/22 Informatica-Cooperativa Cnel. Oviedo <informatica(at)coopovie(dot)com(dot)py>:
> Buenos Dias todos,
>
> Soy un usuario de postgres de Paraguay, consulto
> sobre la posibilidad de inclucion en la futura version la siguiente
> sentencia(Uso de alias en la condicion HAVING ):
>
>
> 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? Part of the problem is
it's inheritantly ambiguous if salarios happens to contain a column
called sumasalario, which is a problem that seems to arise for me
fairly regularly in practice. Still, it would be nice for WHERE/GROUP
BY/HAVING clauses to have an explicit way to reference "the target
list column called foo".
...Robert
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2010-01-24 15:02:47 | Re: Self-referential records |
| Previous Message | Andreas Kretschmer | 2010-01-24 14:51:14 | Re: Self-referential records |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2010-01-24 15:18:14 | Re: commit fests |
| Previous Message | Teodor Sigaev | 2010-01-24 14:43:42 | Re: Red-black tree for GIN |