From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu> |
Cc: | Malcolm Beattie <mbeattie(at)sable(dot)ox(dot)ac(dot)uk>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Phantom row from aggregate in self-join in 6.5 |
Date: | 1999-07-23 14:48:45 |
Message-ID: | 14532.932741325@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu> writes:
> I don't recall which way I argued before (in fact, I don't recall this
> particular example), but I do remember arguing (with righteous
> conviction) that the query
> select count(*) from foo;
> should return a single row containing a zero value.
No argument about that one. It's the GROUP BY case that's at issue.
> Did we infer from
> that some behavior for "group by" (I can't recall any)? istm, at least
> today, that the behavior for the group-by is wrong,
IIRC, you were the main advocate of the position that the code's
existing behavior is correct. Does that mean I can go change it? ;-)
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 1999-07-23 14:51:41 | Re: [HACKERS] RFC: Security and Impersonation |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 1999-07-23 14:19:21 | Re: [HACKERS] Index not used on simple select |