Re: Feedback about Drupal SQL debugging

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
Cc: Jean-Michel Pouré <jm(at)poure(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Feedback about Drupal SQL debugging
Date: 2009-08-22 00:07:07
Message-ID: 13107.1250899627@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> Jean-Michel Pour wrote:
>> Why can't PostgreSQL add the required field automatically? Could this be
>> added to PostgreSQL to-do-list?

> Isn't that contrary to the standard?

As of SQL99 it's supposed to be legal if you're grouping by a primary key
(or some other cases where the other columns can be proved functionally
dependent on the grouping columns, but that's the most useful one).
We haven't got round to implementing that, but I'm not sure that it
would make the Drupal code work anyway. Are they actually writing to
spec here, or just doing whatever mysql will let them?

BTW, I was under the impression there already *was* a TODO entry about
improving our standards compliance in this area. I can't find it in
the list right now, though.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2009-08-22 00:37:31 EXPLAIN VERBOSE vs resjunk output columns
Previous Message Andrew Dunstan 2009-08-21 23:38:52 Re: Feedback about Drupal SQL debugging