From: | Hitoshi Harada <umi(dot)tanuki(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Syntax conflicts in frame clause |
Date: | 2009-11-25 01:03:11 |
Message-ID: | e08cc0400911241703u4bf53ek1c3910605a3d8778@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
2009/11/25 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
> Hitoshi Harada <umi(dot)tanuki(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> Rewriting my frame support types patch to allow any expression in
>> PRECEDING/FOLLOWING clause, I found the syntax below in PG conflicts:
>
> Yeah, we ran into that in the original WINDOW patch IIRC, and found some
> solution to it that got taken out again when the functionality was cut
> down for 8.4. You might want to look back to see what that looked like;
> I think we avoided reserving BETWEEN at the cost of making the
> productions a bit more redundant.
Oops, I've forgot that :(
http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/6363.1229890896@sss.pgh.pa.us
At the time you put BETWEEN as reserved_keyword, but my trial showed
col_name_keyword can also be a candidate.
Regards,
--
Hitoshi Harada
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2009-11-25 01:22:15 | Re: Hot standby and removing VACUUM FULL |
Previous Message | Konstantin Izmailov | 2009-11-25 01:03:03 | pg_attribute.attnum - wrong column ordinal? |