Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ea7IN-0001G9-19 for pgsql-bugs@arkaria.postgresql.org; Fri, 12 Jan 2018 21:55:27 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ea7IM-0005Ou-KG for pgsql-bugs@arkaria.postgresql.org; Fri, 12 Jan 2018 21:55:26 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ea7IM-0005Ok-EQ for pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org; Fri, 12 Jan 2018 21:55:26 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1ea7IJ-0003bI-QZ for pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org; Fri, 12 Jan 2018 21:55:25 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id w0CLtHqq020776; Fri, 12 Jan 2018 16:55:17 -0500 From: Tom Lane To: Ashutosh Bapat cc: Jeevan Chalke , sean.johnston@edgeintelligence.com, Postgres-Bugs , Robert Haas Subject: Re: [BUGS] BUG #14890: Error grouping by same column twice using FDW In-reply-to: References: <20171107134948.1508.94783@wrigleys.postgresql.org> <10660.1510093781@sss.pgh.pa.us> <9632.1510339476@sss.pgh.pa.us> Comments: In-reply-to Ashutosh Bapat message dated "Tue, 21 Nov 2017 11:55:20 +0530" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <20774.1515794117.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2018 16:55:17 -0500 Message-ID: <20775.1515794117@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Precedence: bulk Ashutosh Bapat writes: > I am fine with the patch. It introduces a lot of expected output diff, > since we always deparse GROUP BY clause in positional notation. That's > fine. There is no point in adding extra logic to use positional > notation only when there are duplicate entries in the GROUP BY clause. Yeah, agreed, particularly since that behavior has only been there since 10.0 anyway. Pushed with a few cosmetic adjustments (mostly, improving shaky English in the comments in foreign_grouping_ok()). regards, tom lane