| From: | Pantelis Theodosiou <ypercube(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Vik Fearing <vik(at)postgresfriends(dot)org>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: ANY_VALUE aggregate |
| Date: | 2022-12-07 08:58:44 |
| Message-ID: | CAE3TBxzBvf+mqUtG=4BF=xt0Wg_dkx1Ohq2Wa=FAr5te24KbYQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Dec 6, 2022 at 4:57 AM David G. Johnston
<david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
...
>
>
> I'm referring to the query:
>
> select any_value(v order by v) from (values (2),(1),(3)) as vals (v);
> // produces 1, per the documented implementation-defined behavior.
>
> Someone writing:
>
> select any_value(v) from (values (2),(1),(3)) as vals (v) order by v;
>
> Is not presently, nor am I saying, promised the value 1.
>
Shouldn't the 2nd query be producing an error, as it has an implied
GROUP BY () - so column v cannot appear (unless aggregated) in SELECT
and ORDER BY?
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Drouvot, Bertrand | 2022-12-07 09:00:25 | Re: Minimal logical decoding on standbys |
| Previous Message | Melih Mutlu | 2022-12-07 08:55:24 | Re: Improve tab completion for ALTER FUNCTION/PROCEDURE/ROUTINE |