| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Ronan Dunklau <ronan(dot)dunklau(at)aiven(dot)io>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Vik Fearing <vik(at)postgresfriends(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Ordering behavior for aggregates |
| Date: | 2022-12-13 17:22:19 |
| Message-ID: | 2350864.1670952139@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"David G. Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> I'm more keen on the idea of having the system understand when an ORDER BY
> is missing - that seems like what users are more likely to actually do.
That side of it could perhaps be useful, but not if it's an unintelligent
analysis. If someone has a perfectly safe query written according to
the old-school method:
SELECT string_agg(...) FROM (SELECT ... ORDER BY ...) ss;
they are not going to be too pleased with a nanny-ish warning (much
less an error) saying that the aggregate's input ordering is
underspecified.
I also wonder whether we'd accept any ORDER BY whatsoever, or try
to require one that produces a sufficiently-unique input ordering.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jacob Champion | 2022-12-13 17:27:50 | Re: Remove SHA256_HMAC_B from scram-common.h |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2022-12-13 17:16:19 | Re: New strategies for freezing, advancing relfrozenxid early |