| From: | Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu> |
| Cc: | The Hermit Hacker <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org>, luuk(at)wxs(dot)nl, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Re: [GENERAL] Re: [PHP3] Re: PostgreSQL vs Mysql comparison |
| Date: | 1999-10-07 16:41:53 |
| Message-ID: | 199910071641.MAA02123@candle.pha.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> > My opinion on this tends to be that, in the HAVING case, we are the only
> > one that doesn't support it w/o aggregates, so we altho we do follow the
> > spec, we are making it slightly more difficult to migrate from 'the
> > others' to us...
>
> We follow the spec in what we support, but the spec *does* allow
> HAVING w/o aggregates (and w/o any GROUP BY clause).
>
> Tom, imho we absolutely should *not* emit warnings for unusual but
> legal constructs. Our chapter on "syntax" can start addressing these
> kinds of topics, but the backend probably isn't the place to teach SQL
> style...
>
OK. Agreed.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle
maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 1999-10-07 16:43:48 | Re: [HACKERS] psql and comments |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 1999-10-07 16:38:50 | Re: [HACKERS] password in pg_shadow |