> 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
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2008-12-30 17:25:23|
|Subject: Re: about truncate|
|Previous:||From: Alex Hunsaker||Date: 2008-12-30 16:59:09|
|Subject: Re: contrib/pg_stat_statements 1226|