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
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 |