| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> |
| Cc: | Kevin Brown <kevin(at)sysexperts(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: We are not following the spec for HAVING without GROUP |
| Date: | 2005-03-10 04:44:55 |
| Message-ID: | 11032.1110429895@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers |
Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> writes:
>>> Comments? Can anyone confirm whether DB2 or other databases allow
>>> ungrouped column references with HAVING?
> MySQL allows it:
A slightly tighter experiment shows that they treat HAVING like WHERE
in this case:
mysql> create table tab(col int);
Query OK, 0 rows affected (0.00 sec)
mysql> insert into tab values(1);
Query OK, 1 row affected (0.00 sec)
mysql> insert into tab values(2);
Query OK, 1 row affected (0.01 sec)
mysql> select col from tab having col>1;
+------+
| col |
+------+
| 2 |
+------+
1 row in set (0.00 sec)
I think it's fairly likely that they copied our misinterpretation ...
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-03-10 05:06:24 | Re: We are not following the spec for HAVING without GROUP BY |
| Previous Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2005-03-10 04:00:26 | Re: We are not following the spec for HAVING without GROUP |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-03-10 05:06:24 | Re: We are not following the spec for HAVING without GROUP BY |
| Previous Message | Oleg Bartunov | 2005-03-10 04:43:18 | Re: pgpool question |