On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 1:11 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 12:05 PM, Tom Lane 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 answe
Robert Haas writes:
> On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 12:05 PM, Tom Lane 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
>>
On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 12:05 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Ashutosh Bapat writes:
>> While reviewing patch for similar problem in postgres_fdw [1], I
>> noticed that we don't use positional notation while creating the view.
>> This might introduced anomalies when GROUP BY entries are
>> non-immutable.
>
Ashutosh Bapat writes:
> While reviewing patch for similar problem in postgres_fdw [1], I
> noticed that we don't use positional notation while creating the view.
> This might introduced anomalies when GROUP BY entries are
> non-immutable.
Yeah, we probably ought to make more of an effort to rege
Hi All,
While reviewing patch for similar problem in postgres_fdw [1], I
noticed that we don't use positional notation while creating the view.
This might introduced anomalies when GROUP BY entries are
non-immutable.
E.g.
postgres=# create view aggv as select c2 c21, c2 c22 from t1 group by 1, 2;
