On 7/20/15 11:07 AM, Marko Tiikkaja wrote:
> On 7/20/15 6:02 PM, Corey Huinker wrote:
>> By using only(a.name_of_the_thing) we'd have a bit more clarity that the
>> author expected all of those values to be the same across the aggregate
>> window, and discovering otherwise was reason enough to fail the query.
>>
>> *IF* we're considering adding these to core, I think that only() would be
>> just a slight modification of the last() implementation, and could be
>> done
>> at the same time.
>>
>> [1] I don't care what it gets named. I just want the functionality.
>
> A big +1 from me. In fact, I wrote a patch implementing this for 9.5
> but never got around to finishing it.
A big +1 here too; I've wanted this many times in the past.
--
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting, Austin TX
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com
