| From: | Vik Fearing <vik(at)postgresfriends(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Nico Williams <nico(at)cryptonector(dot)com>, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Matheus Alcantara <matheusssilv97(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Proposal: QUALIFY clause |
| Date: | 2025-07-22 15:24:24 |
| Message-ID: | 737a77a2-83eb-4b97-a109-e58d3ce1189a@postgresfriends.org |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 22/07/2025 17:14, Nico Williams wrote:
> It doesn't seem too crazy that extra WHEREs in WHERE clauses should some
> day function as ANDs, and ditto HAVINGs, which is another reason not to
> reuse HAVING for this: just to leave that a possibility, remote though
> it might be.
I have a firm finger on the pulse of the standards committee, and I can
guarantee that multiple WHERE clauses will never replace AND until
certain people cross the river Styx. Myself included.
> My advice is to wait till QUALIFY is standardized, then hold your nose
> and adopt it, or maybe sooner when it becomes clear that it will be
> standardized (because so many other RDBMSes have it too).
Good advice.
--
Vik Fearing
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2025-07-22 15:26:12 | Re: Proposal: QUALIFY clause |
| Previous Message | Vik Fearing | 2025-07-22 15:14:33 | Re: Proposal: QUALIFY clause |