X-Original-To: pgsql-sql-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.144]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3064E3A5631 for ; Thu, 2 Dec 2004 02:54:48 +0000 (GMT) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 61453-07 for ; Thu, 2 Dec 2004 02:54:41 +0000 (GMT) Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB5043A5682 for ; Thu, 2 Dec 2004 02:54:43 +0000 (GMT) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id iB22sd3Z001698; Wed, 1 Dec 2004 21:54:39 -0500 (EST) To: "Iain" Cc: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org Subject: Re: invalid 'having' clause In-reply-to: <001601c4d815$d8f03430$7201a8c0@mst1x5r347kymb> References: <001601c4d815$d8f03430$7201a8c0@mst1x5r347kymb> Comments: In-reply-to "Iain" message dated "Thu, 02 Dec 2004 11:22:56 +0900" Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2004 21:54:39 -0500 Message-ID: <1697.1101956079@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.003 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=AWL X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200412/20 X-Sequence-Number: 19640 "Iain" writes: > Just a quick question out of curiosity, I was just wondering if this is > supposed to be valid sql: > select count(*) as cnt > from sometable > group by somecolumn > having cnt > 1 No. The HAVING clause logically executes before the SELECT output list does, so it makes no sense for it to refer to the output list entries. regards, tom lane