Re: [PATCH] GROUP BY ALL

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: David Christensen <david(at)pgguru(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] GROUP BY ALL
Date: 2024-07-22 22:29:35
Message-ID: 931747.1721687375@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

"David G. Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 1:55 PM David Christensen <david(at)pgguru(dot)net> wrote:
>> I see that there'd been some chatter but not a lot of discussion about
>> a GROUP BY ALL feature/functionality. There certainly is utility in
>> such a construct IMHO.

> I strongly dislike adding this feature. I'd only consider supporting it if
> it was part of the SQL standard.

Yeah ... my recollection is that we already rejected this idea.
If you want to re-litigate that, "throwing this out there" is
not a sufficient argument.

(Personally, I'd wonder exactly what ALL is quantified over: the
whole output of the FROM clause, or only columns mentioned in the
SELECT tlist, or what? And why that choice rather than another?)

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2024-07-22 22:36:34 Re: Vacuum ERRORs out considering freezing dead tuples from before OldestXmin
Previous Message Nathan Bossart 2024-07-22 22:27:13 Re: Remove dependence on integer wrapping