From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: "David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>
cc: David Christensen <david@pgguru.net>,
        pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] GROUP BY ALL
In-reply-to: <CAKFQuwY0vhNG8T+pC3BQJurFi3NN_L1KbEPGagRN3V5nKZcpDQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAHM0NXjz0kDwtzoe-fnHAqPB1qA8_VJN0XAmCgUZ+iPnvP5LbA@mail.gmail.com> <CAKFQuwY0vhNG8T+pC3BQJurFi3NN_L1KbEPGagRN3V5nKZcpDQ@mail.gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to "David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>
	message dated "Mon, 22 Jul 2024 14:33:57 -0700"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-ID: <931746.1721687375.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2024 18:29:35 -0400
Message-ID: <931747.1721687375@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/931747.1721687375%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

"David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> writes:
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 1:55=E2=80=AFPM David Christensen <david@pgguru.=
net> wrote:
>> I see that there'd been some chatter but not a lot of discussion about
>> a GROUP BY ALL feature/functionality.  There certainly is utility in
>> such a construct IMHO.

> I strongly dislike adding this feature.  I'd only consider supporting it=
 if
> it was part of the SQL standard.

Yeah ... my recollection is that we already rejected this idea.
If you want to re-litigate that, "throwing this out there" is
not a sufficient argument.

(Personally, I'd wonder exactly what ALL is quantified over: the
whole output of the FROM clause, or only columns mentioned in the
SELECT tlist, or what? And why that choice rather than another?)

			regards, tom lane