| 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 05:27:17 |
| Message-ID: | 2121518.1653542837@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
I wrote:
> 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.
After some more digging I found the thread that (I think) the "mere
pedantry" comment was referring to:
There's other nearby discussion at
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/4476BABD.4080100%40zigo.dhs.org
(note that that's referring to the klugy state of affairs before 108fe4730)
Of course, that's just a couple of offhand email threads, which should
not be mistaken for graven stone tablets. But I still don't see much
advantage in deviating from the SQL-standard syntax for COUNT(*).
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Smith | 2022-05-26 05:38:20 | Re: Handle infinite recursion in logical replication setup |
| Previous Message | Gurjeet Singh | 2022-05-26 05:24:08 | Re: Patch: Don't set LoadedSSL unless secure_initialize succeeds |