From: | Manfred Koizar <mkoi-pg(at)aon(dot)at> |
---|---|
To: | Dmitry Tkach <dmitry(at)openratings(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Debugging postmaster to fix possible bug in Postgres? Followup |
Date: | 2003-02-13 23:01:54 |
Message-ID: | f08o4vc1nd01ap1r4loq9m4g20rbsc384m@4ax.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-sql |
On Thu, 13 Feb 2003 17:50:22 -0500, Dmitry Tkach
<dmitry(at)openratings(dot)com> wrote:
>Then it looks like postgres behaviour is still not compliant, if I read it correctly, because
>
>select x from mytable order by y;
>
>should be invalid according to this, but works just fine in postres.
Yes, this is a Postgres extension to the standard. Your query is
handled like
SELECT x, y FROM mytable ORDER BY y
with y being eliminated after the sort step. This also explains why
the OP got the error message
ERROR: Attribute t.y must be GROUPed or used in an aggregate function
because the implicitely rewritten form would look like
SELECT COUNT(*), y FROM t WHERE ... ORDER BY y
>P.S. I think, this is a great feature actually (missed it a lot in informix),
> so, I hope, you guys won't start discussing how to fix it :-)
AFAICT there's no need to worry. Everyone agrees that this is a good
feature and it does not break standard SQL queries.
Servus
Manfred
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2003-02-13 23:06:27 | Re: Extending Datatype |
Previous Message | Jeff Lu | 2003-02-13 23:00:16 | postmaster -i & establishes three connections why? |