From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Marko Tiikkaja <marko(dot)tiikkaja(at)cs(dot)helsinki(dot)fi> |
Cc: | Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Hitoshi Harada <umi(dot)tanuki(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: Aggregate ORDER BY patch |
Date: | 2009-12-19 19:34:06 |
Message-ID: | 14020.1261251246@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Marko Tiikkaja <marko(dot)tiikkaja(at)cs(dot)helsinki(dot)fi> writes:
> On 2009-12-15 23:10 +0200, Tom Lane wrote:
>> If we really wanted to take the above seriously, my opinion is that
>> we ought to introduce DISTINCT ON in aggregates.
> FWIW, in my opinion the idea behind this patch is to not fall back on
> hacks like that. This patch already goes beyond the standard and having
> this seems like a useful feature in some cases. Although the DISTINCT
> ON syntax would have a bit more resemblance on the existing syntax, I'd
> still like to see agg(distinct x order by x,y).
I remain entirely unconvinced. If DISTINCT + ORDER BY work differently
inside aggregates than at query level, we're going to forever be
explaining the difference, fielding bug reports, etc. Even documenting
the difference would be a serious PITA considering how subtle it is
(AFAICS Andrew's submitted doc patch failed to address the point).
I'm not against the idea of introducing DISTINCT ON here, though I think
perhaps we ought to wait for a release or so and see if there's really
any field demand for it.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-12-19 20:01:50 | Re: LATERAL |
Previous Message | Hiroyuki Yamada | 2009-12-19 19:20:39 | Re: alpha3 release schedule? |