Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 12:05 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> Yeah, we probably ought to make more of an effort to regenerate the >> original query wording. I do not think that forcing positional notation >> is a suitable answer in this case, because it would result in converting >> SQL-standard queries to nonstandard ones.
> Who cares? The other end is presumptively PostgresSQL, because this > is postgres_fdw. No, you missed the context. Yes, the original problem is in postgres_fdw, and there indeed it seems fine to emit GROUP BY 1,2. What Ashutosh is pointing out is that ruleutils.c can emit a representation of a view that fails to preserve its original semantics, thus causing dump/reload problems that have nothing at all to do with FDWs. And what I'm pointing out is that we don't like pg_dump to emit nonstandard representations of objects that were created with perfectly standard-compliant queries; therefore emitting GROUP BY 1,2 isn't good if the query wasn't spelled like that to begin with. regards, tom lane