On 7/20/15 6:02 PM, Corey Huinker wrote:
> By using only(a.name_of_the_thing) we'd have a bit more clarity that the
> author expected all of those values to be the same across the aggregate
> window, and discovering otherwise was reason enough to fail the query.
>
> *IF* we're considering adding these to core, I think that only() would be
> just a slight modification of the last() implementation, and could be done
> at the same time.
>
> [1] I don't care what it gets named. I just want the functionality.
A big +1 from me. In fact, I wrote a patch implementing this for 9.5
but never got around to finishing it.
.m