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

> Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> >> 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
> 
> Er ... what's wrong with that?  Assuming b is a group by column,
> of course...

But can we compare aggs and non-aggs?  I see now that our code is fine:
select relowner from pg_class group by relowner having max(relowner) = relowner;

This returns the proper result, namely the relowner _having_ the max
id.

Having is using an aggregate and non-aggregate, so when I said we only
support aggregates in the HAVING clause, I was wrong.  Looks fine.

--  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