| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Hitoshi Harada <umi(dot)tanuki(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Functional dependencies and GROUP BY |
| Date: | 2010-06-11 12:02:19 |
| Message-ID: | 1276257739.8488.19.camel@fsopti579.F-Secure.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On tis, 2010-06-08 at 10:21 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> The question is why bother to recognize *any* cases of this form.
> I find it really semantically ugly to have the parser effectively
> doing one deduction of this form when the main engine for that type
> of deduction is elsewhere; so unless there is a really good argument
> why we have to do this case (and NOT "it was pretty easy"), I don't
> want to do it.
Yeah, I'm not horribly attached to it. I began to structure the code to
support multiple kinds of checks, and at the end only two kinds were
reasonably doable and useful. We can remove it if no one is interested
in it, which appears to be the case.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2010-06-11 12:07:08 | Re: Functional dependencies and GROUP BY |
| Previous Message | Pr, Solaiyappan (NSN - IN/Bangalore) | 2010-06-11 11:56:03 | PG 9.1 tentative timeline |