this post was submitted on 27 Dec 2023
543 points (96.7% liked)

Programmer Humor

27314 readers
1808 users here now

Welcome to Programmer Humor!

This is a place where you can post jokes, memes, humor, etc. related to programming!

For sharing awful code theres also Programming Horror.

Rules

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Feyter@programming.dev
anzo@programming.dev
BurningTurtle@programming.dev
pylapp@programming.dev
543
no.. just no (lemmy.ca)
submitted 2 years ago by reimufumo@lemmy.ca to c/programmer_humor@programming.dev
95 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] docAvid@midwest.social 1 points 2 years ago

Postgres has the having clause. If it didn't, that wouldn't work, as you can't use aggregates in a where. If you have to make do without having, for some reason, you can use a subquery, something like select * from (select someCalculatedValue(someInput) as lol) as stuff where lol > 42, which is very verbose, but doesn't cause the sync problem.

Also, I don't think they were saying the capability having gives is bad, but that a new query language should be designed such that you get that capability without it.