| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Jean-Michel Pouré <jm(at)poure(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Feedback about Drupal SQL debugging |
| Date: | 2009-08-24 20:17:23 |
| Message-ID: | 1251145044.10096.20.camel@vanquo.pezone.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On fre, 2009-08-21 at 20:07 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> As of SQL99 it's supposed to be legal if you're grouping by a primary key
> (or some other cases where the other columns can be proved functionally
> dependent on the grouping columns, but that's the most useful one).
> We haven't got round to implementing that, but I'm not sure that it
> would make the Drupal code work anyway. Are they actually writing to
> spec here, or just doing whatever mysql will let them?
>
> BTW, I was under the impression there already *was* a TODO entry about
> improving our standards compliance in this area. I can't find it in
> the list right now, though.
I added "Add support for functional dependencies" just now, with a
comment how this relates to GROUP BY.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-08-24 20:19:10 | Re: Bug in date arithmetic |
| Previous Message | Greg Stark | 2009-08-24 20:13:09 | Re: Bug in date arithmetic |