From: Date: October 7 1999 3:27pm
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL vs Mysql comparison
List-Archive: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql/15446
Message-Id: <14332.40536.859315.44763@monty.pp.sci.fi>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

>>>>> "Bruce" == Bruce Momjian <maillist@stripped> writes:

>> On Thu, 7 Oct 1999, Michael Widenius wrote:
>> 
>> > As you may have seen on the postgreSQL list, crash-me was actually
>> > right that postgreSQL didn't support -- comments and HAVING as
>> > required by ANSI SQL.  Isn't it nice that we help you fix your bugs?
>> 
>> Actually, I believe Thomas did research on this point (or was it Tom?) and
>> determined that HAVING w/o aggregates is *not* required by ANSI SQL ...
>> could out point out where this requirement is listed? *raised eyebrow*

According to C.J.DATE, A Guide to the SQL standard, forth edition,
page 155, one is allowed in ANSI SQL to use HAVING with any GROUP BY
statement.  One is also allowed to use any scalar functions in the
HAVING part as long as the scalar value is single-value per group.

Where did Thomas/Tom look this up?

Bruce> Seems we will downgrade it to a warning.  Too many people misunderstand
Bruce> HAVING vs. WHERE, so a nice warning would help new users.

Should you really give a warning for something that is correct ANSI SQL ?

Regards,
Monty