Andrew Gierth wrote >>>>>> "Tom" == Tom Lane <
> tgl@.pa > > writes: > > >> Please don't object that that doesn't look exactly like the syntax > >> for calling the function, because it doesn't anyway --- remember > >> you also need ORDER BY in the call. > > Tom> Actually, now that I think of it, why not use this syntax for > Tom> declaration and display purposes: > > Tom> type1, type2 ORDER BY type3, type4 > > Tom> This has nearly as much relationship to the actual calling > Tom> syntax as the WITHIN GROUP proposal does, > > But unfortunately it looks exactly like the calling sequence for a > normal aggregate with an order by clause - I really think that is > potentially too much confusion. (It's one thing not to look like > the calling syntax, it's another to look exactly like a valid > calling sequence for doing something _different_.) > > -- > Andrew (irc:RhodiumToad) How about: type1, type2 GROUP ORDER type3, type4 OR GROUP type1, type2 ORDER type3, type4 David J. -- View this message in context: http://postgresql.1045698.n5.nabble.com/Re-WITHIN-GROUP-patch-tp5773851p5782202.html Sent from the PostgreSQL - hackers mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
