Thomas Lockhart <lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu> writes:
> I don't recall which way I argued before (in fact, I don't recall this
> particular example), but I do remember arguing (with righteous
> conviction) that the query
> select count(*) from foo;
> should return a single row containing a zero value.
No argument about that one. It's the GROUP BY case that's at issue.
> Did we infer from
> that some behavior for "group by" (I can't recall any)? istm, at least
> today, that the behavior for the group-by is wrong,
IIRC, you were the main advocate of the position that the code's
existing behavior is correct. Does that mean I can go change it? ;-)
regards, tom lane