| From: | Nico Williams <nico(at)cryptonector(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Vik Fearing <vik(at)postgresfriends(dot)org>, 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 15:14:04 |
| Message-ID: | aH+qvHJXcrjdwvOH@ubby |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
I often accidentally write
SELECT .. WHERE .. WHERE ..;
which is obviously wrong, but what I mean when I do this is
SELECT .. WHERE .. AND ..;
and if I wrote GROUP BY .. HAVING queries as often as I do ones that
don't GROUP BY then I'd probably also accidentally use extra HAVINGs as
ANDs.
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.
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).
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Vik Fearing | 2025-07-22 15:14:33 | Re: Proposal: QUALIFY clause |
| Previous Message | Nico Williams | 2025-07-22 15:07:47 | Re: Proposal: QUALIFY clause |