Quick Links

Re: [HACKERS] Sugerencia de opcion

Lists:	pgsql-generalpgsql-hackers

From:	"Informatica-Cooperativa Cnel(dot) Oviedo" <informatica(at)coopovie(dot)com(dot)py>
To:	pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject:	Sugerencia de opcion
Date:	2009-01-22 15:55:26
Message-ID:	497896EE.9070700@coopovie.com.py
Views:	Raw Message \| Whole Thread \| Download mbox \| Resend email
Lists:	pgsql-general pgsql-hackers

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Buenos Dias todos, 
 
                            Soy un usuario de postgres de Paraguay,
consulto sobre la posibilidad de inclucion en la futura version la
siguiente sentencia(Uso de alias en la condicion HAVING ): 
 
 
    SELECT id, sum(salario) as SumaSalario 
    FROM salarios 
    GROUP BY id 
    HAVING SumaSalario>500; 
 
 
     Saludos, 
 
 
 
Edgar Villalba. (edgvill) 
Paraguay 
   
 
 
</body>
</html>

Attachment	Content-Type	Size
unknown_filename	text/html	801 bytes

From:	Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To:	"Informatica-Cooperativa Cnel(dot) Oviedo" <informatica(at)coopovie(dot)com(dot)py>
Cc:	pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject:	Re: [HACKERS] Sugerencia de opcion
Date:	2010-01-24 14:54:21
Message-ID:	603c8f071001240654t11884cc0kae1f0d1907c63e38@mail.gmail.com
Views:	Raw Message \| Whole Thread \| Download mbox \| Resend email
Lists:	pgsql-general pgsql-hackers

2009/1/22 Informatica-Cooperativa Cnel. Oviedo <informatica(at)coopovie(dot)com(dot)py>:
> Buenos Dias todos,
>
> Soy un usuario de postgres de Paraguay, consulto
> sobre la posibilidad de inclucion en la futura version la siguiente
> sentencia(Uso de alias en la condicion HAVING ):
>
>
> SELECT id, sum(salario) as SumaSalario
> FROM salarios
> GROUP BY id
> HAVING SumaSalario>500;

I've wished for that syntax once or twice myself, but I'm assuming
there's a reason we haven't implemented it? Part of the problem is
it's inheritantly ambiguous if salarios happens to contain a column
called sumasalario, which is a problem that seems to arise for me
fairly regularly in practice. Still, it would be nice for WHERE/GROUP
BY/HAVING clauses to have an explicit way to reference "the target
list column called foo".

...Robert

From:	Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To:	Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc:	"Informatica-Cooperativa Cnel(dot) Oviedo" <informatica(at)coopovie(dot)com(dot)py>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject:	Re: [HACKERS] Sugerencia de opcion
Date:	2010-01-24 17:14:59
Message-ID:	27577.1264353299@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views:	Raw Message \| Whole Thread \| Download mbox \| Resend email
Lists:	pgsql-general pgsql-hackers

Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> 2009/1/22 Informatica-Cooperativa Cnel. Oviedo <informatica(at)coopovie(dot)com(dot)py>:
>> SELECT id, sum(salario) as SumaSalario
>> FROM salarios
>> GROUP BY id
>> HAVING SumaSalario>500;

> I've wished for that syntax once or twice myself, but I'm assuming
> there's a reason we haven't implemented it?

It's contrary to standard. There are some other reasons you can find
in the archives, too.

regards, tom lane