| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Hitoshi Harada <umi(dot)tanuki(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Window functions patch v04 for the September commit fest |
| Date: | 2008-09-02 07:14:07 |
| Message-ID: | 7359.1220339647@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> writes:
> On Tue, Sep 02, 2008 at 02:42:25AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> It's not like we haven't seen a SQL draft go down in flames before.
> Do you think that anything in the windowing functions section will
> disappear?
Who's to say?
I have no objection to looking at the 2003 and 200n documents in
parallel, especially if there are places where 200n clarifies the
intent of 2003. But I'd be suspicious of designing around
entirely-new features presented by 200n.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2008-09-02 07:16:24 | Re: Is this really really as designed or defined in some standard |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2008-09-02 07:01:45 | Re: Is this really really as designed or defined in some standard |