Skip site navigation (1)
Skip section navigation (2)
Peripheral Links
Header And Logo
|
Site Navigation
Re: max(*)
- From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
- To: "Jim C. Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com>
- Cc: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Dennis Bjorklund <db(at)zigo(dot)dhs(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
- Subject: Re: max(*)
- Date: Fri, 26 May 2006 15:37:51 -0400
- Message-id: <28527(dot)1148672271(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
"Jim C. Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com> writes: > My concern is that it's not inconceiveable to typo max(field) into > max(*), which could make for a rather frustrating error. Not to mention > this being something that could trip newbies up. If nothing else I'd say > it warrants a %TODO just so it doesn't end up on the PostgreSQL gotcha's > page. :) count(*) has been implemented that way since about 1999, and no one's complained yet, so I think you are overstating the importance of the problem. regards, tom lane
- References:
- max(*)
- From: Dennis Bjorklund
- Re: max(*)
- From: Simon Riggs
- Re: max(*)
- From: Tom Lane
- Re: max(*)
- From: Jim C. Nasby
- max(*)
- Prev by Date: Re: max(*)
- Next by Date: Re: GIN stuck in loop during PITR
- Previous by thread: Re: max(*)
- Next by thread: Question about "name" datatype
- Indexes: