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

Re: TODO items for window functions

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Hitoshi Harada <umi(dot)tanuki(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: TODO items for window functions
Date: 2008-12-29 17:20:16
Message-ID: 495906D0.5020406@dunslane.net (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane wrote:
> However, if we do that then for consistency we'd have to invent
> DROP WINDOW FUNCTION, ALTER WINDOW FUNCTION, RENAME WINDOW FUNCTION,
> COMMENT ON WINDOW FUNCTION, yadda yadda, and insist that you refer
> to a function properly (with or without WINDOW) in each one of these
> commands.  Which would be a real PITA to implement and document,
> and I can't see that it's doing anything much for users either.
>
> So I'm still leaning to the first way.  Comments?
>
> 			
>   

I don't know that this matters so much unless you're going to have a 
seperate namespace for window functions. Otherwise, isn't WINDOW 
basically a noise word for these operations?

cheers

andrew

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Greg StarkDate: 2008-12-29 17:21:12
Subject: Re: incoherent view of serializable transactions
Previous:From: Pavel StehuleDate: 2008-12-29 17:19:55
Subject: Re: TODO items for window functions

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