Re: [PATCH] GROUP BY ALL - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: [PATCH] GROUP BY ALL
Date
Msg-id 931747.1721687375@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [PATCH] GROUP BY ALL  ("David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: [PATCH] GROUP BY ALL
Re: [PATCH] GROUP BY ALL
List pgsql-hackers
"David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> writes:
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 1:55 PM David Christensen <david@pgguru.net> wrote:
>> I see that there'd been some chatter but not a lot of discussion about
>> a GROUP BY ALL feature/functionality.  There certainly is utility in
>> such a construct IMHO.

> I strongly dislike adding this feature.  I'd only consider supporting it if
> it was part of the SQL standard.

Yeah ... my recollection is that we already rejected this idea.
If you want to re-litigate that, "throwing this out there" is
not a sufficient argument.

(Personally, I'd wonder exactly what ALL is quantified over: the
whole output of the FROM clause, or only columns mentioned in the
SELECT tlist, or what? And why that choice rather than another?)

            regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Nathan Bossart
Date:
Subject: Re: Remove dependence on integer wrapping
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Vacuum ERRORs out considering freezing dead tuples from before OldestXmin