>>>>> "Tom" == Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes:
Tom> We could alternatively decide that the agg has level 0, but that Tom> doesn't seem terribly useful, and I think it's not per spec Tom> either. SQL:2008 section 6.9 <set function specification> seems Tom> pretty clear that only aggregated arguments should be considered Tom> when determining the semantic level of an aggregate. OTOH, I Tom> don't see any text there restricting what can be in the Tom> non-aggregated arguments, so maybe the committee thinks this Tom> case is sensible? Or they just missed it. My bet is that they missed it, because there's another obvious oversight there; it doesn't define column references in the FILTER clause applied to an ordered set function as being aggregated column references, yet it's clear that this must be the case (since they filter the set of rows that the aggregated column references refer to). -- Andrew (irc:RhodiumToad) -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
