| From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Aliased SubSelect in HAVING clause bug -- in progress? |
| Date: | 2003-03-12 16:54:58 |
| Message-ID: | 200303120854.58407.josh@agliodbs.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
Tom,
> No, because it's not a bug. The SELECT list is evaluated after HAVING,
> so what you are asking for is an impossibility in the SQL semantic
> model.
>
> (Yeah, I know there's some laxity in GROUP BY ... one of our worse
> mistakes IMHO ...)
Oh. I see what you mean. Given that I (along with at least a dozen posters
to the SQL list) was confused that our HAVING/ORDER BY will accept column
aliases but not sub-select aliases, would this be worthy of a FAQ item?
--
-Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2003-03-12 17:18:40 | Re: Aliased SubSelect in HAVING clause bug -- in progress? |
| Previous Message | Stephan Szabo | 2003-03-12 14:50:25 | Re: op error no question, but no error warning |