| From: | "Matheus Alcantara" <matheusssilv97(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Vik Fearing" <vik(at)postgresfriends(dot)org>, "Pg Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Cc: | "Peter Eisentraut" <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Proposal: QUALIFY clause |
| Date: | 2025-07-21 21:29:05 |
| Message-ID: | DBI1WKCGAPN4.321XNB6R2YKPT@gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon Jul 21, 2025 at 5:23 PM -03, Vik Fearing wrote:
>
> On 21/07/2025 14:47, Matheus Alcantara wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I'm sending a proof-of-concept patch to add support for the QUALIFY
>> clause in Postgres. This feature allows filtering rows after window
>> functions are computed, using a syntax similar to the WHERE or HAVING
>> clauses.
>
>
> I took a very brief look at this, and I think your grammar is wrong.
> The QUALIFY clause should go after the WINDOW clause, just like
> FROM/WHERE and GROUP BY/HAVING.
>
>
> That is what I am proposing to the standards committee, and I already
> have some buy-in for that.
>
Thank you for the brief review and for the comments!
I'm not sure if I fully understand but please see the new attached
version.
Thanks,
--
Matheus Alcantara
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| v1-0001-QUALIFY-clause.patch | text/plain | 21.7 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Sami Imseih | 2025-07-21 21:47:31 | Re: track generic and custom plans in pg_stat_statements |
| Previous Message | Sami Imseih | 2025-07-21 21:23:52 | Re: [PATCH] Proposal to Enable/Disable Index using ALTER INDEX |