X-Original-To: pgsql-sql-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF5C5D84B7 for ; Thu, 13 Oct 2005 16:17:00 -0300 (ADT) 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 86355-05 for ; Thu, 13 Oct 2005 19:16:57 +0000 (GMT) Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7D6ED82F6 for ; Thu, 13 Oct 2005 16:16:57 -0300 (ADT) 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 j9DJGe2r025083; Thu, 13 Oct 2005 15:16:40 -0400 (EDT) To: "Anthony Molinaro" Cc: "Scott Marlowe" , "Greg Stark" , "Stephan Szabo" , "Rick Schumeyer" , pgsql-sql@postgresql.org Subject: Re: pg, mysql comparison with "group by" clause In-reply-to: <3C6C2B281FD3E74C9F7C9D5B1EDA4582182621@wgexch01.wgenhq.net> References: <3C6C2B281FD3E74C9F7C9D5B1EDA4582182621@wgexch01.wgenhq.net> Comments: In-reply-to "Anthony Molinaro" message dated "Thu, 13 Oct 2005 15:06:36 -0400" Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 15:16:40 -0400 Message-ID: <25082.1129231000@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.006 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.006] X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200510/149 X-Sequence-Number: 23002 "Anthony Molinaro" writes: > An additional gripe is that this isn't a good feature (standard or not). > Oracle doesn't do it. Db2 doesn't do it. You sure about that? It's hard to believe that the SQL committee would put a feature into the spec that neither Oracle nor IBM intended to implement. Those two pretty much control the committee after all ... regards, tom lane