Tom Lane wrote: > Gregory Stark <stark@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > Fwiw even in the min/max/sum case the spec is moving away from having > > aggregates ignore NULL values. You now get a warning in Oracle if your > > aggregate includes any NULL inputs. > > I don't think there's any "moving" involved; as far back as SQL92 the > definition of aggregates (except COUNT) said > > b) Otherwise, let TX be the single-column table that is the > result of applying the <value expression> to each row of T > and eliminating null values. If one or more null values are > eliminated, then a completion condition is raised: warning- > null value eliminated in set function. > > We pretty much ignore the spec's concept of non-error completion > conditions, but it sounds like Oracle tries to support it. > > Anyway, there's no doubt that we can point to the behavior of MAX/MIN > as defense for what we made GREATEST/LEAST do, so I'm inclined to leave > their behavior alone, at least until such time as they're actually > standardized. But a note in the manual pointing out the difference from > Oracle seems in order. Agreed that we are good by following min/max. Not sure about a mention in the docs that we are different from Oracle helps. Do we mention other differences? I see us doing that only for PL/Psql. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@xxxxxxxxxx> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
