Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.183]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7084764FCC4 for ; Wed, 10 Sep 2008 06:20:59 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 07570-09 for ; Wed, 10 Sep 2008 06:20:52 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from outmail136058.authsmtp.co.uk (outmail136058.authsmtp.co.uk [62.13.136.58]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A10564FCF4 for ; Wed, 10 Sep 2008 06:20:51 -0300 (ADT) Received: from mail-c188.authsmtp.com (mail-c188.authsmtp.com [62.13.128.25]) by punt2.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/Kp) with ESMTP id m8A9KdqS024932; Wed, 10 Sep 2008 10:20:39 +0100 (BST) Received: from [192.168.0.2] (85-211-229-97.dyn.gotadsl.co.uk [85.211.229.97]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/Kp) with ESMTP id m8A9KJjh078658; Wed, 10 Sep 2008 10:20:20 +0100 (BST) Subject: Re: PostgreSQL TPC-H test result? From: Simon Riggs To: Tom Lane Cc: Robert Treat , pgsql-general@postgresql.org, Amber , Andrew Sullivan In-Reply-To: <24765.1220992015@sss.pgh.pa.us> References: <20080909123947.GA59092@commandprompt.com> <200809091129.54467.robert@omniti.com> <24765.1220992015@sss.pgh.pa.us> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 10:20:32 +0100 Message-Id: <1221038432.3913.647.camel@ebony.2ndQuadrant> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.12.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Server-Quench: b0d3c0b8-7f19-11dd-aecc-001871e930f4 X-AuthRoute: OCdxZQATClZOTQEd DAteCiNZVAwpPBRK HVkIKg5MJUcNSQVJ NksacxtFaQVbflxB HGQLW1xEUV17W2N/ aQofZQBDYEtPQQdo WVZARU1QEQdtHhxP WxZvW2IILV1Gf3Z2 YE4sX3RdXgoodRJ+ EU4GHXABM2ZpdWEe BBRFJlYHIx5Kfh5N bVEqXXANN2FJBC9q VzwcEhYcBxx7HWxt RRoRIkgfen8vVgIE bFUiVSkiBlFNXSgo Mhg6fTYy X-Authentic-SMTP: 61633235383639.cat.dmpriest.net.uk:1186/Kp X-Report-SPAM: If SPAM / abuse - report it at: http://www.authsmtp.com/abuse X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=none X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200809/389 X-Sequence-Number: 137396 On Tue, 2008-09-09 at 16:26 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > That's probably not good because it *looks* like we support the syntax, > but in fact produce non-spec-compliant results. I think it might be > better if we threw an error. Definitely. If we accept SQL Standard syntax like this but then not do what we should, it is clearly an ERROR. Our reputation will be damaged if we don't, since people will think that we are blase about standards compliance and about query correctness. Please lets move swiftly to plug this hole, as if it were a data loss bug (it is, if it causes wrong answers to queries for unsuspecting users). -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support