| From: | Vik Fearing <vik(at)postgresfriends(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: ANY_VALUE aggregate |
| Date: | 2023-01-18 16:03:55 |
| Message-ID: | 7e0b78af-c8db-4a09-7612-08d35f84fcf3@postgresfriends.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 1/18/23 16:55, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
>> On 05.12.22 21:18, Vik Fearing wrote:
>>> On 12/5/22 15:57, Vik Fearing wrote:
>>>> The SQL:2023 Standard defines a new aggregate named ANY_VALUE. It
>>>> returns an implementation-dependent (i.e. non-deterministic) value
>>>> from the rows in its group.
>
>> Since the transition function is declared strict, null values don't need
>> to be checked.
>
> Hmm, but should it be strict? That means that what it's returning
> is *not* "any value" but "any non-null value". What does the draft
> spec have to say about that?
It falls into the same category as AVG() etc. That is, nulls are
removed before calculation.
--
Vik Fearing
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2023-01-18 16:14:47 | Re: Improve GetConfigOptionValues function |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2023-01-18 15:55:56 | Re: ANY_VALUE aggregate |