Re: Attribute must be GROUPed.... ?
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Attribute must be GROUPed.... ? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 25379.1051749118@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Attribute must be GROUPed.... ? (Stephan Szabo <sszabo@megazone23.bigpanda.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Stephan Szabo <sszabo@megazone23.bigpanda.com> writes: > Yeah, that can get to be a problem... In any case, you'll probably get > other comments. Oh yeah, and you'll probably be asked for documentation > comments if it's even considered since you're adding a visible GUC entry. > :) Well, it won't be --- diking out required error checks without providing a substitute isn't my idea of a useful patch ;) The SQL99 spec defines an improved version of this behavior which I think is what Daniele really would like to have. Basically it says that if column A can be proved functionally dependent on column B then you only need to GROUP BY column B, and then you can use column A without having to explicitly mention it in the GROUP BY list. "Functionally dependent" means there is no possibility of A values being different in rows with the same B value. The spec has a whole lot of verbiage about possible ways to deduce functional dependency, but one easy one is where column B is a primary key and column A is in its table. If someone wants to implement the SQL99 behavior (or even just a useful subset of it), that would be cool with me. It looks like a lot of work though. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: