| From: | "Sven R(dot) Kunze" <srkunze(at)mail(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: WITH clause in CREATE STATISTICS |
| Date: | 2017-05-04 22:16:40 |
| Message-ID: | c03704e3-d56a-65b4-f8fd-8c4886050d22@mail.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 04.05.2017 23:13, Tom Lane wrote:
> I'm not against what you've done here, because I had no love for USING
> in this context anyway; it conveys approximately nothing to the mind
> about what is in the list it's introducing. But I'm concerned whether
> we're boxing ourselves in by using ON.
>
> Actually, "ON" doesn't seem all that mnemonic either. Maybe "FOR"
> would be a good substitute, if it turns out that "ON" has a problem?
The whole syntax reminds me of a regular SELECT clause. So, SELECT?
Also considering the most generic form of statistic support mentioned in
[1], one could even thing about allowing aggregates, windowing functions
etc, aka the full SELECT clause in the future.
Sven
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Merlin Moncure | 2017-05-04 22:33:13 | Re: PG 10 release notes |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2017-05-04 22:05:18 | Re: what's up with IDENTIFIER_LOOKUP_EXPR? |