From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: David Christensen <david@pgguru.net>
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>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] GROUP BY ALL
In-reply-to: 
 <CAHM0NXjJdKgTC91VegL_SruOBn_PQoeCime_DZkOA02HChPDmw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4D2047B0-E8D8-472B-B7E8-61206B1E6AFA@yandex-team.ru>
 <F694DABC-6A42-4614-B254-643180B9D6F6@pgguru.net>
 <CAHM0NXj1Gv_96WxZkiLKhxJVaYOGcmdZ2hApNcvWQ5HxV84Q=A@mail.gmail.com>
 <4083063.1758902694@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CAHM0NXgPhe_OF81MyA9ocWZ=b+oEAHtQHoDXw4DverPdbkXzpg@mail.gmail.com>
 <4085064.1758903815@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <cf397a8c-49cf-4839-9a3f-992ea49feb12@eisentraut.org>
 <167505.1758988990@sss.pgh.pa.us> <702762.1759011796@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CAHM0NXgP6-a75XgAR-WdKfzvDRcUv3=CipR+Zt2qmZ0T8bcABg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHM0NXjJdKgTC91VegL_SruOBn_PQoeCime_DZkOA02HChPDmw@mail.gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to David Christensen <david@pgguru.net>
	message dated "Sun, 28 Sep 2025 15:34:28 -0500"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <356956.1759179517.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2025 16:58:37 -0400
Message-ID: <356957.1759179517@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/356957.1759179517%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

David 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.

I did some more word-smithing on the docs and pushed it.

>> 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.

+1, can't hurt.

>> (It seems like it
>> works as-is without further grammar adjustments, but I was a little
>> worried when I first saw that fact... :D)

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.

Thanks for the patch!

			regards, tom lane