On Sunday, December 18, 2022, Tom Lane &lt;<a href="mailto:tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us">tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us</a>&gt; wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Andrey Borodin &lt;<a href="mailto:amborodin86@gmail.com">amborodin86@gmail.com</a>&gt; writes:<br>
&gt; I saw a thread in a social network[0] about GROUP BY ALL. The idea seems useful.<br>
<br>
Isn&#39;t that just a nonstandard spelling of SELECT DISTINCT?<br>
<br>
What would happen if there are aggregate functions in the tlist?<br>
I&#39;m not especially on board with &quot;ALL&quot; meaning &quot;ALL (oh, but not<br>
aggregates)&quot;.<br><br>
</blockquote><div><br></div><div>IIUC some systems treat any non-aggregated column as an implicit group by column.  This proposal is an explicit way to enable that implicit behavior in PostgreSQL.  It is, as you note, an odd meaning for the word ALL.</div><div><br></div><div>We tend to not accept non-standard usability syntax extensions even if others systems implement them.  I don’t see this one ending up being an exception…</div><div><br></div><div>David J.</div><div><br></div>