| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk> |
| Cc: | Atri Sharma <atri(dot)jiit(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Vik Fearing <vik(dot)fearing(at)dalibo(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: WITHIN GROUP patch |
| Date: | 2013-12-06 20:21:48 |
| Message-ID: | 18231.1386361308@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
I wrote:
> One possibility is to forget all the parens and say that the display
> looks like
> type1, type2 WITHIN GROUP type3, type4
> Please don't object that that doesn't look exactly like the syntax
> for calling the function, because it doesn't anyway --- remember you
> also need ORDER BY in the call.
Actually, now that I think of it, why not use this syntax for declaration
and display purposes:
type1, type2 ORDER BY type3, type4
This has nearly as much relationship to the actual calling syntax as the
WITHIN GROUP proposal does, and it's hugely saner from a semantic
standpoint, because after all the ordering columns are ordering columns,
not grouping columns.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2013-12-06 20:24:13 | Re: pg_stat_statements: calls under-estimation propagation |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2013-12-06 20:14:52 | Re: WITHIN GROUP patch |