> My opinion on this tends to be that, in the HAVING case, we are the only
> one that doesn't support it w/o aggregates, so we altho we do follow the
> spec, we are making it slightly more difficult to migrate from 'the
> others' to us...
We follow the spec in what we support, but the spec *does* allow
HAVING w/o aggregates (and w/o any GROUP BY clause).
Tom, imho we absolutely should *not* emit warnings for unusual but
legal constructs. Our chapter on "syntax" can start addressing these
kinds of topics, but the backend probably isn't the place to teach SQL
style...
> Benchmarks, IMHO, always try to favor the 'base product' that is being
> advertised...but, more often then not, its because the person doing the
> benchmarking knows that product well enough to be able to 'tweak' it to
> perform better...Luuk, so far as I believe, is willing to be "educated in
> PostgreSQL"...I don't think its right for us to stifle that, is it?
Right. Sorry Luuk for going off on ya...
- Thomas
--
Thomas Lockhart lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu
South Pasadena, California
