"Kevin Grittner" <kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov> writes: > 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 think the pre-existing TODO item is evidence that there's at least willingness to consider such things. (OTOH I believe that item has been there for quite a long time, without any action being taken.) > 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? Yes, I think we should narrowly list things we don't want to do. The current wording reads like "we aren't interested in adopting any MySQL ideas", which I don't think is actually the project consensus, not to mention that it doesn't look good from a PR standpoint. I believe we do have consensus that we aren't interested in adopting MySQL's nonstandard GROUP BY semantics. I don't recall what else there might be a definite "no" for. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers