| 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: | Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: FILTER for aggregates [was Re: Department of Redundancy Department: makeNode(FuncCall) division] |
| Date: | 2013-06-27 14:05:34 |
| Message-ID: | 20268.1372341934@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk> writes:
> 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.
Yeah, please submit a separate patch that just refactors the existing
grammar as above; that'll simplify reviewing.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robins Tharakan | 2013-06-27 14:12:10 | Re: Add more regression tests for CREATE OPERATOR |
| Previous Message | Sawada Masahiko | 2013-06-27 14:02:57 | Re: Patch for fail-back without fresh backup |