On 04.05.2017 23:13, Tom Lane wrote:
I'm not against what you've done here, because I had no love for USING
in this context anyway; it conveys approximately nothing to the mind
about what is in the list it's introducing. But I'm concerned whether
we're boxing ourselves in by using ON.
Actually, "ON" doesn't seem all that mnemonic either. Maybe "FOR"
would be a good substitute, if it turns out that "ON" has a problem?
The whole syntax reminds me of a regular SELECT clause. So, SELECT?
Also considering the most generic form of statistic support mentioned in
[1], one could even thing about allowing aggregates, windowing functions
etc, aka the full SELECT clause in the future.
Sven
[1]
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAEZATCUtGR+U5+QTwjHhe9rLG2nguEysHQ5NaqcK=vbj78v...@mail.gmail.com
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
