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

On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 08:41:59AM +0000, Andrew Gierth wrote:
> Tom Lane said:
> > Agreed, separating out the function-call-with-trailing-declaration
> > syntaxes so they aren't considered in FROM and index_elem seems
> > like the best compromise.
> >
> > If we do that for window function OVER clauses as well, can we
> > make OVER less reserved?
>
> Yes.
>
> At least, I tried it with both OVER and FILTER unreserved and there
> were no grammar conflicts (and I didn't have to do anything fancy to
> avoid them), and it passed regression with the exception of the
> changed error message for window functions in the from-clause.
>
> So is this the final decision on how to proceed? It seems good to
> me, and I can work with David to get it done.

If this is really the direction people want to go, I'm in. Is there
some code I can look at?

I still submit that having our reserved word ducks in a row in advance
is a saner way to go about this, and will work up a patch for that as
I have time.

Cheers,
David.
--
David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david(dot)fetter(at)gmail(dot)com
iCal: webcal://www.tripit.com/feed/ical/people/david74/tripit.ics

Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate