From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
Cc: | Andy Colson <andy(at)squeakycode(dot)net>, DaNieL <daniele(dot)pignedoli(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: PGSQL-to-MYSQL Migration: Error in a 'simple' inner join query |
Date: | 2009-05-04 20:26:34 |
Message-ID: | 14105.1241468794@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> writes:
> Section 4.18 of SQL200n, "Functional Dependencies", shows some
> interesting ways that the DBMS can make the proper inferences (I think
> this is an optional feature, so I don't think PostgreSQL violates the
> standard here).
Just for the record, this is something that was added in SQL:99 ---
our behavior conforms to the letter of earlier SQL versions. I think
we have a TODO item to add at least some support for allowing implicit
GROUP BY using functional dependencies, but it's kind of a worrisome
thing. I don't know of any other part of the SQL spec whereby ALTER
TABLE DROP CONSTRAINT could turn a formerly semantically legal query
into an illegal query. Could have some unpleasant implications for the
behavior of prepared statements.
(Also, I'll bet a lot of money that mysql has not implemented this
feature according to spec. The last I heard, as long as you have a
GROUP BY they just blithely assume you know what you're doing and
didn't write a query whose results are ambiguous.)
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Adam Ruth | 2009-05-04 20:55:12 | uuid data type and ODBC |
Previous Message | Scott Marlowe | 2009-05-04 19:10:47 | Re: PGSQL-to-MYSQL Migration: Error in a 'simple' inner join query |