Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 10:37 PM, Hitoshi Harada <umi.tan...@gmail.com> wrote: >> 2010/2/9 Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us>: >>> Given the lack of time remaining in this CF, I'm tempted to propose >>> ripping out the RANGE support and just trying to get ROWS committed. >>> That should be substantially less controversial from a semantic >>> standpoint, and it still seems like a considerable improvement in >>> functionality. >> >> As expected. I don't mind splitting patch to be committable if users >> who expected this feature don't mind.
> Well, they'll likely be happier with a partial feature than no feature > at all... I agree with Tom that there's no time time now to resolve > the issue of how + and - should be handled. I've done that and am reviewing the rest of the patch, but I had more trouble than I expected with phrasing the "not implemented" message. Usually we try to word these things like "SQLCOMMAND is not implemented" but there's no one-word version of what it is that's been left out. "RANGE" isn't right since there are variants of RANGE that work. What I have at the moment is if (n->frameOptions & (FRAMEOPTION_START_VALUE_PRECEDING | FRAMEOPTION_END_VALUE_PRECEDING)) ereport(ERROR, (errcode(ERRCODE_FEATURE_NOT_SUPPORTED), errmsg("RANGE value PRECEDING is not implemented yet"), parser_errposition(@1))); if (n->frameOptions & (FRAMEOPTION_START_VALUE_FOLLOWING | FRAMEOPTION_END_VALUE_FOLLOWING)) ereport(ERROR, (errcode(ERRCODE_FEATURE_NOT_SUPPORTED), errmsg("RANGE value FOLLOWING is not implemented yet"), parser_errposition(@1))); but I wonder if anyone has a better idea. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers