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 |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
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
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2008-12-30 17:25:23 | Re: about truncate |
Previous Message | Alex Hunsaker | 2008-12-30 16:59:09 | Re: contrib/pg_stat_statements 1226 |