On Fri, Sep 26, 2025 at 10:54 AM Peter Eisentraut <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 26.09.25 16:11, Tom Lane wrote: > > Peter Eisentraut <[email protected]> writes: > >> The initially proposed patch appears to have the right idea overall. > >> But it does not handle more complex cases like > >> SELECT a, SUM(b)+a FROM t1 GROUP BY ALL; > > > >> (For explanation: GROUP BY ALL expands to all select list entries that > >> do not contain aggregates. So the above would expand to > >> SELECT a, SUM(b)+a FROM t1 GROUP BY a; > >> which should then be rejected based on the existing rules.) > > > > I thought I understood this definition, up till your last > > comment. What's invalid about that expanded query? > > > > regression=# create table t1 (a int, b int); > > CREATE TABLE > > regression=# SELECT a, SUM(b)+a FROM t1 GROUP BY a; > > a | ?column? > > ---+---------- > > (0 rows) > > This was a sloppy example. Here is a better one: > > create table t1 (a int, b int, c int); > > select a, sum(b)+c from t1 group by all; > > This is equivalent to > > select a, sum(b)+c from t1 group by a; > > which would be rejected as > > ERROR: column "t1.c" must appear in the GROUP BY clause or be used > in an aggregate function
Verified that with v2 that this is what happens in this case; will include this and whatever other feedback there is in a v3.
