Re: [HACKERS] Phantom row from aggregate in self-join in 6.5
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] Phantom row from aggregate in self-join in 6.5 |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1281.932769853@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] Phantom row from aggregate in self-join in 6.5 (Thomas Lockhart <lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Thomas Lockhart <lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu> writes: >> IIRC, you were the main advocate of the position that the code's >> existing behavior is correct. Does that mean I can go change it? ;-) > Yes, after you slap me around a bit for being so wrong. Do you > remember when we were discussing it? I want to go back and see why I > thought this was right. I'm guessing that the example was not phrased > in exactly this way, and that there may be some other behavior we need > to maintain. (Otherwise, I might have used up my "one wrong idea per > year" ;) Actually, it may be my recollection that's wrong. The only discussion of the point that I can find right now is the thread "SUM() and GROUP BY" from around 1/12/99 in pghackers, and it seems to be mostly focused on arguments about whether you should get NULL or 0 from a no-input SUM... I would've sworn I remember a couple of other related threads in the past year or so, but I cannot find them now. Anyway, unless someone speaks up in favor of the way the code currently works, I will see about changing the results for the GROUP-BY-with-no- input-rows case. I got a few other things to do first though. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: