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

On 27 June 2013 15:05, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> 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.
>

In that case, I'll re-review the latest FILTER patch over the weekend
on the understanding that the reserved/unreserved keyword issue will
be resolved in separate patch.

Regards,
Dean