Received: from localhost (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF8EB475C5F for ; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 11:58:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from serwer.skawsoft.com.pl (serwer.skawsoft.com.pl [213.25.37.66]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FA934769A7 for ; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 11:58:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lamer.pl (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by serwer.skawsoft.com.pl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DBD72B4D6; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 17:51:29 +0200 (CEST) From: "Tomasz Myrta" To: Stephan Szabo , Tomasz Myrta Cc: Subject: Re: sub-select with aggregate Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 17:51:29 +0900 Message-Id: <20021024175129.M3214@klaster.net> In-Reply-To: <20021024081033.U20230-100000@megazone23.bigpanda.com> References: <3DB7BF5A.1090606@klaster.net> <20021024081033.U20230-100000@megazone23.bigpanda.com> X-Mailer: Open WebMail 1.62 20020221 X-OriginatingIP: 217.96.97.138 (jasiek) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-2 X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS new-20020517 X-Archive-Number: 200210/340 X-Sequence-Number: 10057 > The system doesn't realize that it can limit the subquery when the only > things it has is the join clause and the limiting clause on the other > table. Like Tom's message about the other view, it won't imply that > X.foo=12345 from foo=12345 when the exposed foo is B.foo. Is this what we should expect, or rather a bug? The system knows how to join tables, but fails with joining views or subselects :-( Tomasz Myrta