| From: | Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)BlueTreble(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Marko Tiikkaja <marko(at)joh(dot)to>, Corey Huinker <corey(dot)huinker(at)gmail(dot)com>, Paul A Jungwirth <pj(at)illuminatedcomputing(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, sudalai <sudalait2(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: First Aggregate Funtion? |
| Date: | 2015-07-21 18:11:27 |
| Message-ID: | 55AE8B4F.3050207@BlueTreble.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 7/20/15 11:07 AM, Marko Tiikkaja wrote:
> On 7/20/15 6:02 PM, Corey Huinker wrote:
>> By using only(a.name_of_the_thing) we'd have a bit more clarity that the
>> author expected all of those values to be the same across the aggregate
>> window, and discovering otherwise was reason enough to fail the query.
>>
>> *IF* we're considering adding these to core, I think that only() would be
>> just a slight modification of the last() implementation, and could be
>> done
>> at the same time.
>>
>> [1] I don't care what it gets named. I just want the functionality.
>
> A big +1 from me. In fact, I wrote a patch implementing this for 9.5
> but never got around to finishing it.
A big +1 here too; I've wanted this many times in the past.
--
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting, Austin TX
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Paul Ramsey | 2015-07-21 18:14:55 | Re: [PATCH] postgres_fdw extension support |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2015-07-21 18:07:24 | Re: [PATCH] postgres_fdw extension support |