Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > I think the new item might be phrased a little too broadly. The > problem with mysql's GROUP BY behavior is not the syntax but the > nonstandard semantics, ie, that it will pick a random result row > when the query is underspecified. I thought that some of the items on the OP's list were requests to add an alternative syntax for an existing feature, without a change in semantics. Did I misunderstand that? If not, is it something we want to consider? I do know that some of the requests were to support behavior we would consider incorrect (like the non-deterministic results from an underspecified GROUP BY); not only do we not want to go to any effort to *add* it, but we'd probably be putting in effort to *eliminate* it if it was present. Should the TODO list "not wanted" section explicitly list each such feature, so that non-listed features aren't painted by the same broad brush? > I believe what that's actually about is the idea of converting > things like Oracle's CONNECT BY into SQL-spec constructs. Doing > so wouldn't break any existing PG-compatible applications, whereas > messing with the semantics of GROUP BY probably would. Yeah, my first draft of that was even broader, not naming MySQL in particular -- but then I remembered that we've made a few concessions to Oracle compatibility. As far as I can recall, though, those tend not to involve new syntax, but functions that aren't required by the standard -- which seems much less invasive than the OP's requests. I'm willing to rework, soften, or narrow the entry as needed, and I certainly would take no offense at anyone else doing so. I was just trying to get it listed, since there seemed to be some community consensus on the point. -Kevin
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
