Re: Support for RANGE ... PRECEDING windows in OVER

From: Hitoshi Harada <umi(dot)tanuki(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Support for RANGE ... PRECEDING windows in OVER
Date: 2013-06-21 11:35:39
Message-ID: CAP7QgmkfHGnzXderNj8m4UsgSWZj5a6A+X5vrfw7owx9yrNJ=A@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 3:20 AM, Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:

> On 06/21/2013 05:32 PM, Hitoshi Harada wrote:
>
> > I also later found that we are missing not only notion of '+' or '-',
> > but also notion of 'zero value' in our catalog. Per spec, RANGE BETWEEN
> > needs to detect ERROR if the offset value is negative, but it is not
> > always easy if you think about interval, numeric types as opposed to
> > int64 used in ROWS BETWEEN.
>
> Zero can be tested for with `val = (@ val)` ie `val = abs(val)`. That
> should make sense for any type in which the concept of zero makes sense.
>
>
> Yeah, I mean, it needs to know if offset is negative or not by testing
with zero. So we need "zero value" or "is_negative function" for each type.

Thanks,
--
Hitoshi Harada

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2013-06-21 11:54:34 Re: Support for REINDEX CONCURRENTLY
Previous Message Etsuro Fujita 2013-06-21 10:45:51 Re: Patch for removng unused targets