| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Vik Fearing <vik(at)postgresfriends(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Andrey Borodin <amborodin86(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: GROUP BY ALL |
| Date: | 2023-01-06 21:56:11 |
| Message-ID: | Y7iY+9tHYpvt4HYy@momjian.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Dec 19, 2022 at 05:53:46PM +0100, Vik Fearing wrote:
> I think this is a pretty terrible idea. If we want that kind of behavior,
> we should just allow the GROUP BY to be omitted since without grouping sets,
> it is kind of redundant anyway.
>
> I don't know what my opinion is on that.
This is a very interesting concept. Because Postgres requires GROUP BY
of all non-aggregate columns of a target list, Postgres could certainly
automatically generate the GROUP BY. However, readers of the query
might not easily distinguish function calls from aggregates, so in a way
the GROUP BY is for the reader, not for the database server.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> https://momjian.us
EDB https://enterprisedb.com
Embrace your flaws. They make you human, rather than perfect,
which you will never be.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thomas Munro | 2023-01-06 22:08:36 | Re: Using WaitEventSet in the postmaster |
| Previous Message | Jacob Champion | 2023-01-06 21:55:47 | Re: RFC: logical publication via inheritance root? |