MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <177634636825.403056.10912625029192163239@wrigleys.postgresql.org>
References: <177634636825.403056.10912625029192163239@wrigleys.postgresql.org>
From: "David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2026 23:29:20 -0700
Message-ID: 
 <CAKFQuwa=LNL8Ub-8ShCvpg4N2u_+MeVRSYRNC8Qj=0Zajp01+g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Unclear documentation and requirement of clarification
To: "aravinat2001@gmail.com" <aravinat2001@gmail.com>,
	"pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org" <pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000960ba1064fb62f14"
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAKFQuwa%3DLNL8Ub-8ShCvpg4N2u_%2BMeVRSYRNC8Qj%3D0Zajp01%2Bg%40mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

--000000000000960ba1064fb62f14
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

On Thursday, April 16, 2026, PG Doc comments form <noreply@postgresql.org>
wrote:

> The following documentation comment has been logged on the website:
>
> Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/18/tutorial-agg.html
> Description:
>
> (This restriction exists because the WHERE clause determines which
> rows will be included in the aggregate calculation; so obviously it has to
> be evaluated before aggregate functions are computed.)
>
> This would be better off if it's mentioned that in this particular case, we
> actually need the aggregate function to be computed before the WHERE clause
> and that's why we are using a subquery.
>
>
That is what the parenthetical says, though without introducing the term
subquery.

Without a question or a concrete proposed alternative leaving this as-is
seems reasonable.  I have no qualms with it at least.

David J.

--000000000000960ba1064fb62f14
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Thursday, April 16, 2026, PG Doc comments form &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:nor=
eply@postgresql.org">noreply@postgresql.org</a>&gt; wrote:<br><blockquote c=
lass=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;=
padding-left:1ex">The following documentation comment has been logged on th=
e website:<br>
<br>
Page: <a href=3D"https://www.postgresql.org/docs/18/tutorial-agg.html" targ=
et=3D"_blank">https://www.postgresql.org/<wbr>docs/18/tutorial-agg.html</a>=
<br>
Description:<br>
<br>(This restriction exists because the WHERE clause determines which<br>
rows will be included in the aggregate calculation; so obviously it has to<=
br>
be evaluated before aggregate functions are computed.)<br>
<br>
This would be better off if it&#39;s mentioned that in this particular case=
, we<br>
actually need the aggregate function to be computed before the WHERE clause=
<br>
and that&#39;s why we are using a subquery.<br><br>
</blockquote><div><br></div><div>That is what the parenthetical says, thoug=
h without introducing the term subquery.</div><div><br></div><div>Without a=
 question or a concrete proposed alternative leaving this as-is seems reaso=
nable.=C2=A0 I have no qualms with it at least.</div><div><br></div><div>Da=
vid J.</div><div><br></div>

--000000000000960ba1064fb62f14--