| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Oliver Ford <ojford(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | 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: | 2018-01-10 07:06:18 |
| Message-ID: | 4139.1515567978@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Oliver Ford <ojford(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Tuesday, 9 January 2018, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> So the approach I'm imagining now is a datatype-specific support function
>> along the lines of
>> in_range(a, b, delta) returns bool
>> Likely there are two of these, one each for the PRECEDING and FOLLOWING
>> cases.
> Would you prefer two functions, or a single function with a parameter for
> PRECEDING/FOLLOWING? Maybe:
> in_range(a, b, delta, following) returns bool
You could do it that way too. The two-function approach seems a little
cleaner and easier to document IMO, but it would create more catalog
bloat, so there's that. I don't have a strong preference.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Aleksandr Parfenov | 2018-01-10 07:57:19 | Re: [HACKERS] Flexible configuration for full-text search |
| Previous Message | Oliver Ford | 2018-01-10 06:56:41 | Re: Add RANGE with values and exclusions clauses to the Window Functions |