| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Florian Pflug <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Hitoshi Harada <umi(dot)tanuki(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Underspecified window queries in regression tests |
| Date: | 2011-10-17 15:37:56 |
| Message-ID: | 14370.1318865876@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Florian Pflug <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org> writes:
> In addition, I think we should reword the explanation in 4.2.8 (The SQL Language
> / SQL Syntax / Value Expressions / Window Functions). Instead of that rather
> long (and IMHO hard to read) paragraph about possible frame clauses and their
> behaviour in the presence or absence of an ORDER BY clause, we should go with
> a more algorithmic explanation I think.
Hm. I do not think what you're proposing is a substitute for the text
that's now in 4.2.8, because that's mostly providing syntactic details.
It might make a good addition though.
> If you think that something along these lines would be an improvement, I can try
> to come up with a patch.
Sure.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Shigeru Hanada | 2011-10-17 17:27:15 | Re: WIP: Collecting statistics on CSV file data |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2011-10-17 14:11:39 | Re: proposal: set GUC variables for single query |