| From: | Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: FILTER for aggregates [was Re: Department of Redundancy Department: makeNode(FuncCall) division] |
| Date: | 2013-06-27 08:41:59 |
| Message-ID: | 7c73f7b5630eb0e2581cbd02696b61b2@news-out.riddles.org.uk |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane said:
> Agreed, separating out the function-call-with-trailing-declaration
> syntaxes so they aren't considered in FROM and index_elem seems like
> the best compromise.
>
> If we do that for window function OVER clauses as well, can we make
> OVER less reserved?
Yes.
At least, I tried it with both OVER and FILTER unreserved and there
were no grammar conflicts (and I didn't have to do anything fancy to
avoid them), and it passed regression with the exception of the
changed error message for window functions in the from-clause.
So is this the final decision on how to proceed? It seems good to me,
and I can work with David to get it done.
--
Andrew (irc:RhodiumToad)
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2013-06-27 08:47:20 | Re: FILTER for aggregates [was Re: Department of Redundancy Department: makeNode(FuncCall) division] |
| Previous Message | Hitoshi Harada | 2013-06-27 08:35:43 | Re: in-catalog Extension Scripts and Control parameters (templates?) |