Dnia 2011-06-21, wto o godzinie 14:31 -0300, Andre Terra pisze: > I'm not sure this has anything to do with your issue, but it's easy to > miss when reading the docs.
It's kind of related, but not directly. The similarity to the issue mentioned above is that the default ordering field is added to the GROUP BY clause, too. Not exactly my issue, but good input nevertheless, since that kind of confirms that the behavior is "on purpose". Any way to circumvent that in that case? Cheers, -- Michał (Saviq) Sawicz <mic...@sawicz.net>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
