| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | 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> |
| Cc: | 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: | 2025-07-22 15:26:12 |
| Message-ID: | 6bcb5472-194e-4813-8bed-8719c492f6f2@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2025-07-22 Tu 11:14 AM, Vik Fearing wrote:
>
>
>> I agree that its own clause is best; I just greatly dislike QUALIFY.
>
>
> Sorry.
>
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.
cheers
andrew
--
Andrew Dunstan
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Arseniy Mukhin | 2025-07-22 15:43:20 | Re: amcheck support for BRIN indexes |
| Previous Message | Vik Fearing | 2025-07-22 15:24:24 | Re: Proposal: QUALIFY clause |