Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: David Christensen <david@pgguru.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Subject: Re: [PATCH] GROUP BY ALL
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2025 16:13:11 -0500
Message-Id: <11763E31-BCCA-48C0-BA59-1062EE2C6525@pgguru.net>
References: <356957.1759179517@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org>,
 Andrey Borodin <x4mmm@yandex-team.ru>,
 pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>,
 "David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>,
 Jelte Fennema-Nio <postgres@jeltef.nl>
In-Reply-To: <356957.1759179517@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/11763E31-BCCA-48C0-BA59-1062EE2C6525%40pgguru.net>
Precedence: bulk


> On Sep 29, 2025, at 3:58=E2=80=AFPM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>=20
> =EF=BB=BFDavid Christensen <david@pgguru.net> writes:
>>> Here is v7 with a stab at docs; fairly minimal at this point, but
>>> touching the two areas that are likely to need adjusting.
>=20
> I did some more word-smithing on the docs and pushed it.
>=20
>>> When
>>> adjusting the docs for sql-select, I noticed that the grammar also
>>> supports `GROUP BY ALL <grouping_elements>`, so I also added a test to
>>> ensure that this syntax is explicitly supported.
>=20
> +1, can't hurt.
>=20
>>> (It seems like it
>>> works as-is without further grammar adjustments, but I was a little
>>> worried when I first saw that fact... :D)
>=20
> Bison would have been vocal about it if you'd introduced any
> ambiguity.  Still, I didn't feel like looking around to see if we
> already covered this syntax, and I agree it's close enough to being
> an issue to be worth covering.
>=20
> Thanks for the patch!

Great, thank you!

David