| From: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, 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 08:47:20 |
| Message-ID: | CAFj8pRDmgBDKWjMzMHwdZxrLUUcYXXiHA8C=b=Y3EWoTXAfLJQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hello
2013/6/27 Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk>:
> 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.
>
Isn't dangerous do OVER unreserved keyword??
Regards
Pavel
> --
> Andrew (irc:RhodiumToad)
>
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Nicolas Barbier | 2013-06-27 08:56:04 | Re: Documentation/help for materialized and recursive views |
| Previous Message | Andrew Gierth | 2013-06-27 08:41:59 | Re: FILTER for aggregates [was Re: Department of Redundancy Department: makeNode(FuncCall) division] |