Dean Rasheed <dean.a.rash...@gmail.com> writes:
> On 24 June 2013 03:50, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Going on the same principle, we could probably let FILTER be an
>> unreserved keyword while FILTER_FOLLOWED_BY_PAREN could be a
>> type_func_name_keyword. (I've not tried this though.)
> I've not tried either, but wouldn't that mean that "SELECT * FROM
> list_filters() filter" would be legal, whereas "SELECT * FROM
> list_filters() filter(id, val)" would be a syntax error? If so, I
> don't think that would be an improvement.
Hm, good point. The SQL committee really managed to choose some
unfortunate syntax here, didn't they.
I know it's heresy in these parts, but maybe we should consider
adopting a non-spec syntax for this feature? In particular, it's
really un-obvious why the FILTER clause shouldn't be inside rather
than outside the aggregate's parens, like ORDER BY.
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
