On Tue, 16 Jul 2024 at 13:28, David G. Johnston <david.g.johns...@gmail.com> wrote: > Add another note to caveats in the docs and call it a feature. We produce a > valid answer for the data model encountered. The non-determinism isn’t > wrong, it’s just a poorly written query/model with non-deterministic results. > Since v15 we have an any_value aggregate - we basically are applying this to > the dependent columns implicitly. A bit of revisionist history but I’d > rather do that than break said queries. Especially at parse time; I’d be a > bit more open to execution-time enforcement if functional dependency on the > id turns out to have actually been violated. But people want, and in other > products have, any_value implicit aggregation in this situation so it’s hard > to say it is wrong even if we otherwise take the position that we will not > accept it.
I think it might be best just to ignore it and do nothing. Maybe it would be worth putting something into the docs about it if people from userland come complaining about a bug as the doc mention might stop them wasting their time reporting something we already know about. Otherwise, I feel the docs would just draw attention to something that I'd personally rather people didn't do. As you say, using any_value() would be the way we'd encourage people to do it if they don't care which value of the ungrouped column they want, so documenting something else doesn't seem quite right to me. David
