| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Oliver Ford <ojford(at)gmail(dot)com>, "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>, Erik Rijkers <er(at)xs4all(dot)nl>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Add RANGE with values and exclusions clauses to the Window Functions |
| Date: | 2018-06-08 03:27:42 |
| Message-ID: | 22106.1528428462@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On 2/4/18 13:10, Tom Lane wrote:
>> + 22013 E ERRCODE_INVALID_PRECEDING_FOLLOWING_SIZE invalid_preceding_following_size
> I was checking the new error codes in PostgreSQL 11 and came across
> this. The original name in the SQL standard is
> INVALID_PRECEDING_OR_FOLLOWING_SIZE_IN_WINDOW_FUNCTION
> which is reasonable to abbreviate, but is there a reason why we lost the
> "or"?
It seemed like a reasonable abbreviation to me. If you disagree,
feel free to change it.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2018-06-08 03:52:46 | Re: Bug in either collation docs or code |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2018-06-08 03:22:51 | Re: why partition pruning doesn't work? |