| From: | Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)kurilemu(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Vik Fearing <vik(at)postgresfriends(dot)org>, Nico Williams <nico(at)cryptonector(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Matheus Alcantara <matheusssilv97(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Proposal: QUALIFY clause |
| Date: | 2025-07-23 08:12:39 |
| Message-ID: | 202507230812.cpptkfzdholh@alvherre.pgsql |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2025-Jul-22, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> If we were making up our own syntax this would be a sensible thing to
> debate. If we're talking about implementing something we expect to be in the
> standard, I think we will have to live with what the standards committee
> decides, regardless of our preference. We've almost certainly been preempted
> here by other RDBMSs using QUALIFY, heedless of English grammar.
The Romans, the Vikings, the Normans, all have influenced the English
language. Why not SQL?
--
Álvaro Herrera Breisgau, Deutschland — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
“Cuando no hay humildad las personas se degradan” (A. Christie)
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Langote | 2025-07-23 08:38:36 | Re: SQL Property Graph Queries (SQL/PGQ) |
| Previous Message | Álvaro Herrera | 2025-07-23 08:11:03 | Re: Pathify RHS unique-ification for semijoin planning |