| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Marc Cousin <cousinmarc(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: collation problem on 9.1-beta1 |
| Date: | 2011-06-10 03:24:36 |
| Message-ID: | 201106100324.p5A3OaI23221@momjian.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 2:19 PM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
> > On tor, 2011-06-09 at 13:30 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >> Column numbers in ORDER BY is ANSI syntax so I don't think calling
> >> them "legacy" is accurate. ?"limited functionality"?
> >
> > It was in SQL 92, but removed in 99, so it's technically no longer part
> > of the standard.
Wow, they removed it; I use it all the time.
> It's still extremely widely used though, I think, and very useful. I
> don't feel we have to support GROUP BY 1 COLLATE whatever, but it
> might be worth the trouble to at least emit a decent HINT.
True. Seems now these numbers are PG extensions!
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Denis de Bernardy | 2011-06-10 12:44:43 | expanded mode + wrapping in psql |
| Previous Message | Abel Abraham Camarillo Ojeda | 2011-06-10 02:23:38 | Re: Difference in postgres9.0.4 and postgres9.1beta1 when displaying error lines in functions with comments |