Re: [HACKERS] Re: [GENERAL] Re: [PHP3] Re: PostgreSQL vs Mysql comparison

> That's not a bug, it means what it says: HAVING clauses should contain
> aggregate functions.  Otherwise they might as well be WHERE clauses.
> (In this example, flushing rows with negative a before the group step,
> rather than after, is obviously a win, not least because it would
> allow the use of an index on a.)
> 
> However, I can't see anything in the SQL92 spec that requires you to
> use HAVING intelligently, so maybe this error should be downgraded to
> a notice?  "HAVING with no aggregates would be faster as a WHERE"
> (but we'll do it anyway to satisfy pedants...)

If we allow them, then people can do things like:
HAVING max(a) > b

which seems strange.  Would we handle that?

--  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://www.op.net/~candle maillist@candle.pha.pa.us            |  (610)
853-3000+  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill,
Pennsylvania19026