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?
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Greg Stark||Date: 2008-12-29 17:21:12|
|Subject: Re: incoherent view of serializable transactions|
|Previous:||From: Pavel Stehule||Date: 2008-12-29 17:19:55|
|Subject: Re: TODO items for window functions|