Re: [HACKERS] We are not following the spec for HAVING without GROUP

[Kevin HaleBoyes]

Tom Lane wrote:
Would those of you with access to other DBMSes try this:
create table tab (col integer);
select 1 from tab having 1=0;
select 1 from tab having 1=1;
insert into tab values(1);
insert into tab values(2);
select 1 from tab having 1=0;
select 1 from tab having 1=1;
I claim that a SQL-conformant database will return 0, 1, 0, and 1 rows
from the 4 selects --- that is, the contents of tab make no difference
at all.  (MySQL returns 0, 0, 0, and 2 rows, so they are definitely
copying our mistake...)
			regards, tom lane
From SQL server 2000 with a service pack, I get:
zero rows from the first query (having 1=0);
one row, col value 1, from second query (having 1=1);
...run inserts...
zero rows from the third query (having 1=0);
one row, col value 1, from forth query (having 1=1);
K.
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
   (send unregister YourEmailAddressHere to [EMAIL PROTECTED])

Re: [HACKERS] Tired of -Wold-style-definition already

[Kevin HaleBoyes]

Tom Lane wrote:
That's because you're using a badly broken flex:

% flex --version
flex 2.5.31

I know very little (enough to get by) about the configuration
phase when building postgresql but couldn't this be checked for?
That is, configure could check the version of various tools, like
flex, and warn if appropriate.
K.
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster