>>>>> "Tom" == Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes:
Tom> We could alternatively decide that the agg has level 0, but thatTom> doesn't seem terribly useful, and I think
it'snot per specTom> either. SQL:2008 section 6.9 <set function specification> seemsTom> pretty clear that only
aggregatedarguments should be consideredTom> when determining the semantic level of an aggregate. OTOH, ITom> don't
seeany text there restricting what can be in theTom> non-aggregated arguments, so maybe the committee thinks thisTom>
caseis sensible? Or they just missed it.
My bet is that they missed it, because there's another obvious
oversight there; it doesn't define column references in the FILTER
clause applied to an ordered set function as being aggregated column
references, yet it's clear that this must be the case (since they
filter the set of rows that the aggregated column references refer
to).
--
Andrew (irc:RhodiumToad)