Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian writes:
OK, I put it back, but I still feel we might not need it anymore.
Even if you're willing to believe that the questions will stop once
we have this feature, that won't happen for more than a year.
As a general comment on this, I've gotten two
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> No doubt, but the TODO entry you removed is still 100% accurately
> >> worded, and what's more the archive entry it links to clearly describes
> >> exactly the point at issue, namely that grouping by a PK *isn't*
> >> indeterminate.
Bruce Momjian writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> No doubt, but the TODO entry you removed is still 100% accurately
>> worded, and what's more the archive entry it links to clearly describes
>> exactly the point at issue, namely that grouping by a PK *isn't*
>> indeterminate. You were wrong to remove it
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> I'm not sure whether there is any clear rule for what rows you get when
> >> grouping by a non-PK column in mysql, but it'll let you do it.
>
> > I understand this. The issue is how many people who complained about
> > our GROUP BY
Bruce Momjian writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> I'm not sure whether there is any clear rule for what rows you get when
>> grouping by a non-PK column in mysql, but it'll let you do it.
> I understand this. The issue is how many people who complained about
> our GROUP BY behavior were grouping by som
Tom Lane wrote:
> Stephen Frost writes:
> > * Bruce Momjian (br...@momjian.us) wrote:
> >> My guess is our new 9.1 functionality will reduce requests for this
> >> features, so we can just not list it anymore. If they still ask, we can
> >> re-added this not-wanted item.
>
> > I'm not so sure...
Stephen Frost writes:
> * Bruce Momjian (br...@momjian.us) wrote:
>> My guess is our new 9.1 functionality will reduce requests for this
>> features, so we can just not list it anymore. If they still ask, we can
>> re-added this not-wanted item.
> I'm not so sure... I expect we're going to get
Bruce Momjian writes:
> Well, as worded, it says we have to group by everything, which is not
> true in 9.1, so I figured let's see what feedback we get and we can add
> a new one if we want, but our old argument is invalid, since we did
> implement part of what we said we wouldn't. ;-)
Uh, no.
Stephen Frost wrote:
-- Start of PGP signed section.
> Bruce,
>
> * Bruce Momjian (br...@momjian.us) wrote:
> > My guess is our new 9.1 functionality will reduce requests for this
> > features, so we can just not list it anymore. If they still ask, we can
> > re-added this not-wanted item.
>
> I
Bruce,
* Bruce Momjian (br...@momjian.us) wrote:
> My guess is our new 9.1 functionality will reduce requests for this
> features, so we can just not list it anymore. If they still ask, we can
> re-added this not-wanted item.
I'm not so sure... I expect we're going to get people complaining tha
Tom Lane wrote:
> Log Message:
> ---
> Recognize functional dependency on primary keys. This allows a table's
> other columns to be referenced without listing them in GROUP BY, so long as
> the primary key column(s) are listed in GROUP BY.
>
> Eventually we should also allow functional de
11 matches
Mail list logo
