Re: Call for 7.5 feature completion

From: Jochem van Dieten <jochemd(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Call for 7.5 feature completion
Date: 2005-08-29 10:10:06
Message-ID: f96a9b830508290310265f5d9c@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 29 Aug 2005 09:56:44 +0200, Harald Fuchs wrote:
> Christopher Kings-Lynne writes:
>>
>> Oh, and 'select rowid, * from table' which returns special rowid
>> column that just incrementally numbers each row.

I think you can pretty much do that already by defining your own
aggregate function. The obvious downside is that you need to put all
the other columns in the GROUP BY clause. There might be some
performance implications from the grouping, but I would presume that a
rowid is most usefull in a situation where you are sorting anyway.

I have to admit this part of the SQL spec is a bit over my head, but
isn't grouping on an <empty grouping set> essentially a no-op?
Implementing that would then take care of having to put all the
coulmns in the GROUP BY clause.

> Why?

Because, although rarely necessary, it is frequently convenient to
have such functionality on the server.

Jochem

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andreas Pflug 2005-08-29 11:09:35 Re: dangling lock information?
Previous Message Hannu Krosing 2005-08-29 10:05:55 Re: dangling lock information?