Re: Re: FILTER for aggregates [was Re: Department of Redundancy Department: makeNode(FuncCall) division]

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>
Cc: David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com>, Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Re: FILTER for aggregates [was Re: Department of Redundancy Department: makeNode(FuncCall) division]
Date: 2013-06-24 14:59:00
Message-ID: 13987.1372085940@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu> writes:
> I think their model is that applications work with a certain version
> of SQL and they're not expected to work with a new version without
> extensive updating.

Hm. We could invent a "sql_version" parameter and tweak the lexer to
return keywords added in spec versions later than that as IDENT.
However, I fear such a parameter would be a major PITA from the user's
standpoint, just like most of our backwards-compatibility GUCs have
proven to be.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Dimitri Fontaine 2013-06-24 15:01:44 Re: [9.4 CF 1] The Commitfest Slacker List
Previous Message Tom Lane 2013-06-24 14:49:53 Re: patch submission: truncate trailing nulls from heap rows to reduce the size of the null bitmap [Review]