Re: [BUGS] We are not following the spec for HAVING without GROUP - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: [BUGS] We are not following the spec for HAVING without GROUP
Date
Msg-id 5788.1110783179@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [BUGS] We are not following the spec for HAVING without GROUP  (Bruno Wolff III <bruno@wolff.to>)
Responses Re: [BUGS] We are not following the spec for HAVING without GROUP  (Bruno Wolff III <bruno@wolff.to>)
List pgsql-hackers
Bruno Wolff III <bruno@wolff.to> writes:
> If someone did a naive implementation of first() and last() aggregates
> for 8.1, is that something that would likely be accepted?

For the purpose that Greg is suggesting, these would have no advantage
over min() or max() --- since the system wouldn't know how to optimize
them --- and they'd be considerably less standard.  So my inclination
would be to say it's a waste of effort.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [BUGS] We are not following the spec for HAVING without GROUP
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: signed short fd