| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> |
| Cc: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, pgsql-patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: variance aggregates per SQL:2003 |
| Date: | 2006-03-08 03:25:33 |
| Message-ID: | 7783.1141788333@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-patches |
Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> writes:
> Well, I realize that stddev(DISTINCT x) != stddev(x) and that most
> people are going to be interested in stddev(x), but I don't think it's
> inconceivable for someone to be interested in stddev(DISTINCT x).
> Explicitly checking for and rejecting it doesn't serve any useful
> purpose that I can see, beyond compliance with the letter of the
> standard -- if the user asks for stddev(DISTINCT x), are we really
> providing useful behavior if we refuse to calculate it?
Agreed, refusing this is not something we should waste code on.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-03-08 03:43:36 | Re: CREATE SYNONYM ... |
| Previous Message | Jonah H. Harris | 2006-03-08 01:12:02 | Re: CREATE SYNONYM ... |