| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Arun Kumar <vak(dot)king(at)outlook(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Requesting advanced Group By support |
| Date: | 2018-10-10 18:30:18 |
| Message-ID: | 18104.1539196218@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> On October 10, 2018 10:37:40 AM PDT, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
>>> So, which part of this supposedly does not work in PostgreSQL?
>> The part where it infers that b.sno is unique based solely on it having
>> been equated to a.sno.
> Isn't the spec compliant thing that's missing dealing with unique not null?
IIRC, the spec has a whole bunch of "functional dependency" proof rules,
of which the only one we implement at the moment is the one about the
other columns of a table all being functionally dependent on its pkey.
I don't know if any of the spec's rules are at all close to this one.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | pgsql | 2018-10-10 18:31:35 | Question about resource owners |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2018-10-10 17:59:29 | Re: Requesting advanced Group By support |