X-Original-To: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org Received: from localhost (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B40A475CB4 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 2003 18:48:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (unknown [192.204.191.242]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EEE0A475C15 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 2003 18:48:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h1DNmT5u002033; Thu, 13 Feb 2003 18:48:29 -0500 (EST) To: Dmitry Tkach Cc: Manfred Koizar , pgsql-sql@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Debugging postmaster to fix possible bug in Postgres? Followup In-reply-to: <3E4C212E.2080805@openratings.com> References: <44sn4vgisulljq45qo35bug12sed1ll3ce@4ax.com> <3E4C212E.2080805@openratings.com> Comments: In-reply-to Dmitry Tkach message dated "Thu, 13 Feb 2003 17:50:22 -0500" Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 18:48:29 -0500 Message-ID: <2032.1045180109@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS new-20020517 X-Archive-Number: 200302/304 X-Sequence-Number: 11702 Dmitry Tkach writes: > Then it looks like postgres behaviour is still not compliant, if I read it correctly, because > select x from mytable order by y; > should be invalid according to this, but works just fine in postres. Yup, it's an extension --- as indeed is pointed out at the bottom of our SELECT reference page. But it's a well-defined extension, because every row of the result does have a clearly associated value of y. Once you throw in GROUP BY or aggregates, you can't order by values that aren't constrained by the grouping. regards, tom lane