| From: | Vik Fearing <vik(at)postgresfriends(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Matheus Alcantara <matheusssilv97(at)gmail(dot)com>, 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 20:23:32 |
| Message-ID: | a042f530-90a4-46fc-8595-43053fcfc06e@postgresfriends.org |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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.
--
Vik Fearing
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Vik Fearing | 2025-07-21 20:26:51 | Re: Proposal: QUALIFY clause |
| Previous Message | Nathan Bossart | 2025-07-21 20:20:55 | Re: Verify predefined LWLocks tranches have entries in wait_event_names.txt |