NikhilS wrote: > > * Clear explanation of the new syntax, with examples of each permutation > > so we can see how that would work. In light of recent discussions on > > -hackers we need to take a view on whether we should go with Gavin's > > suggested syntax or this syntax. > > > > * There are some additional syntax items I don't understand the need > > for. So these need to be explained. > > > > * I would be against using the term PARTITION BY since it is already a > > phrase that is part of the SQL Standard. Perhaps PARTITIONED BY? > > > > * We need regression tests for any new command syntax > > > > * No docs - that might be the same thing as the first item > > Thanks for taking a look. But if I am not mistaken Gavin and co. are working > on a much exhaustive proposal. In light of that maybe this patch might not > be needed in the first place? > > I will wait for discussion and a subsequent collective consensus here, > before deciding the further course of actions.
I think it is unwise to wait on Gavin for a more complex implemention --- we might end up with nothing for 8.4. As long as your syntax is compatible with whatever Gavin proposed Gavin can add on to your patch once it is applied. -- Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://postgres.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + -- Sent via pgsql-patches mailing list (pgsql-patches@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-patches
