Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: TODO items for window functions

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Hitoshi Harada <umi(dot)tanuki(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: TODO items for window functions
Date: 2008-12-30 16:59:22
Message-ID: 16368.1230656362@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
I wrote:
> You could certainly argue the classification either way, but I think
> that we should make a hard decision now: either window functions are
> treated as a distinct object type (implying their own set of command
> names and nuisance errors if you use the wrong one), or they are not a
> distinct object type (implying that WINDOW is an attribute for CREATE
> FUNCTION and not part of the command name).  If we are wishy-washy about
> it and treat WINDOW as just a noise word in some contexts then we will
> have user confusion.  The precedent that is bothering me here is all the
> user confusion that has ensued over whether you can use ALTER TABLE to
> operate on sequences and views.

Apparently that analogy didn't impress anyone but me.  AFAICT the
majority opinion is that we should use the syntax

	create [or replace] [window] function ...

but just ignore the distinction between regular functions and window
functions for all other function-related SQL commands.  Barring further
discussion, I'll make that happen in the next day or two.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2008-12-30 17:25:23
Subject: Re: about truncate
Previous:From: Alex HunsakerDate: 2008-12-30 16:59:09
Subject: Re: contrib/pg_stat_statements 1226

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group