Skip site navigation (1)
Skip section navigation (2)
Peripheral Links
Header And Logo
|
Site Navigation
Re: greatest/least semantics different between oracle and postgres
- From: Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
- To: "Bruce Momjian" <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
- Cc: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Ben" <bench(at)silentmedia(dot)com>, "PostgreSQL General \(\(EN\)\)" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
- Subject: Re: greatest/least semantics different between oracle and postgres
- Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2007 16:51:08 +0100
"Bruce Momjian" <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes: >> Fwiw even in the min/max/sum case the spec is moving away from having >> aggregates ignore NULL values. You now get a warning in Oracle if your >> aggregate includes any NULL inputs. > > How does Oracle's new behavior relate to the standard moving? Sorry I noticed that editing error only after I sent it. I should have changed that to say Oracle was moving in that direction. There's nothing of the sort in SQL2003 that I can find. -- Gregory Stark EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
- References:
- Re: greatest/least semantics different between oracle and postgres
- From: Bruce Momjian
- Re: greatest/least semantics different between oracle and postgres
- Prev by Date: Re: greatest/least semantics different between oracle and postgres
- Next by Date: Re: greatest/least semantics different between oracle and postgres
- Previous by thread: Re: greatest/least semantics different between oracle and postgres
- Next by thread: Re: greatest/least semantics different between oracle and postgres
- Indexes: