Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
>> However, I can't see anything in the SQL92 spec that requires you to
>> use HAVING intelligently, so maybe this error should be downgraded to
>> a notice? "HAVING with no aggregates would be faster as a WHERE"
>> (but we'll do it anyway to satisfy pedants...)
> If we allow them, then people can do things like:
> HAVING max(a) > b
Er ... what's wrong with that? Assuming b is a group by column,
of course...
regards, tom lane
