| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | Laetitia Avrot <laetitia(dot)avrot(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Authorizing select count() |
| Date: | 2022-05-26 01:27:38 |
| Message-ID: | 2069464.1653528458@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> writes:
> On Wed, May 25, 2022 at 12:26:47PM +0200, Laetitia Avrot wrote:
>> You will find enclosed a patch proposal to allow count to be used without a
>> star. I, on purpose, decided not to document this behavior, maybe that's
>> wrong.
> This originates from 108fe47, most likely as part of this thread.
I'm fairly sure that in the past we've considered this idea and rejected
it, mainly on the grounds that it's a completely gratuitous departure
from SQL standard. I quite agree that the syntax without star would be
saner, but once we get into inventing "saner" variants of SQL syntax,
where do we stop? And how much are we buying really?
I definitely don't agree with doing it but not documenting it; that
will just result in endless confusion.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Langote | 2022-05-26 01:31:14 | Re: First draft of the PG 15 release notes |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2022-05-26 01:19:35 | Re: [RFC] Improving multi-column filter cardinality estimation using MCVs and HyperLogLog |