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

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
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: FILTER for aggregates [was Re: Department of Redundancy Department: makeNode(FuncCall) division]
Date: 2013-06-27 14:40:36
Message-ID: 51CC4EE4.30309@gmx.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 6/23/13 10:50 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> It'd sure be interesting to know what the SQL committee's target parsing
> algorithm is.

It's whatever Oracle and IBM implement.

> Or maybe they really don't give a damn about breaking
> applications every time they invent a new reserved word?

Well, yes, I think that policy was built into the language at the very
beginning.

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2013-06-27 14:52:20 Re: Add more regression tests for CREATE OPERATOR
Previous Message Robert Haas 2013-06-27 14:37:01 Re: Kudos for Reviewers -- straw poll