| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | David Christensen <david(at)pgguru(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] GROUP BY ALL |
| Date: | 2024-07-22 22:29:35 |
| Message-ID: | 931747.1721687375@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"David G. Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 1:55 PM David Christensen <david(at)pgguru(dot)net> wrote:
>> I see that there'd been some chatter but not a lot of discussion about
>> a GROUP BY ALL feature/functionality. There certainly is utility in
>> such a construct IMHO.
> I strongly dislike adding this feature. I'd only consider supporting it if
> it was part of the SQL standard.
Yeah ... my recollection is that we already rejected this idea.
If you want to re-litigate that, "throwing this out there" is
not a sufficient argument.
(Personally, I'd wonder exactly what ALL is quantified over: the
whole output of the FROM clause, or only columns mentioned in the
SELECT tlist, or what? And why that choice rather than another?)
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2024-07-22 22:36:34 | Re: Vacuum ERRORs out considering freezing dead tuples from before OldestXmin |
| Previous Message | Nathan Bossart | 2024-07-22 22:27:13 | Re: Remove dependence on integer wrapping |