On Sat, Jul 06, 2013 at 11:49:21AM +0100, Dean Rasheed wrote:
> On 5 July 2013 18:23, David Fetter wrote:
> > Please find attached changes based on the above.
> >
>
> This looks good. The grammar changes are smaller and neater now on top
> of the makeFuncCall() patch.
>
> Overall I think this pa
On 5 July 2013 18:23, David Fetter wrote:
> Please find attached changes based on the above.
>
This looks good. The grammar changes are smaller and neater now on top
of the makeFuncCall() patch.
Overall I think this patch offers useful additional functionality, in
compliance with the SQL spec, w
On Mon, Jul 01, 2013 at 05:30:38PM +0100, Dean Rasheed wrote:
> On 1 July 2013 01:44, David Fetter wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 09:22:52PM +0100, Dean Rasheed wrote:
> >> On 21 June 2013 06:16, David Fetter wrote:
> >> > Please find attached a patch which allows subqueries in the FILTER
> >
On 1 July 2013 01:44, David Fetter wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 09:22:52PM +0100, Dean Rasheed wrote:
>> On 21 June 2013 06:16, David Fetter wrote:
>> > Please find attached a patch which allows subqueries in the FILTER
>> > clause and adds regression testing for same.
>> >
>>
>> This needs r
On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 09:22:52PM +0100, Dean Rasheed wrote:
> On 21 June 2013 06:16, David Fetter wrote:
> > Please find attached a patch which allows subqueries in the FILTER
> > clause and adds regression testing for same.
> >
>
> This needs re-basing/merging following Robert's recent commit
On 21 June 2013 06:16, David Fetter wrote:
> Please find attached a patch which allows subqueries in the FILTER
> clause and adds regression testing for same.
>
This needs re-basing/merging following Robert's recent commit to make
OVER unreserved.
Regards,
Dean
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers maili
On 6/23/13 10:50 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> It'd sure be interesting to know what the SQL committee's target parsing
> algorithm is.
It's whatever Oracle and IBM implement.
> Or maybe they really don't give a damn about breaking
> applications every time they invent a new reserved word?
Well, yes, I
2013/6/26 Dean Rasheed :
> On 26 June 2013 01:01, Josh Berkus wrote:
>>
>>> 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
On 26 June 2013 01:01, Josh Berkus wrote:
>
>> 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 ORD
> 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.
Well, what other DBMSes support this fea
On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 10:50 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> David Fetter writes:
>> On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 07:44:26AM -0700, Kevin Grittner wrote:
>>> I think it is OK if that gets a syntax error. If that's the "worst
>>> case" I like this approach.
>
>> I think reducing the usefulness of error message
2013/6/25 Tom Lane :
> Dean Rasheed writes:
>> On 24 June 2013 03:50, Tom Lane 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
Dean Rasheed writes:
> On 24 June 2013 03:50, Tom Lane 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 me
On 24 June 2013 03:50, Tom Lane wrote:
> David Fetter writes:
>> On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 07:44:26AM -0700, Kevin Grittner wrote:
>>> I think it is OK if that gets a syntax error. If that's the "worst
>>> case" I like this approach.
>
>> I think reducing the usefulness of error messages is someth
David Fetter writes:
> On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 07:44:26AM -0700, Kevin Grittner wrote:
>> I think it is OK if that gets a syntax error. If that's the "worst
>> case" I like this approach.
> I think reducing the usefulness of error messages is something we need
> to think extremely hard about bef
On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 07:44:26AM -0700, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> Dean Rasheed wrote:
>
> > I'm still not happy that this patch is making FILTER a new reserved
> > keyword, because I think it is a common enough English word (and an
> > obscure enough SQL keyword) that people may well have used it
Dean Rasheed wrote:
> I'm still not happy that this patch is making FILTER a new reserved
> keyword, because I think it is a common enough English word (and an
> obscure enough SQL keyword) that people may well have used it for
> table names or aliases, and so their code will break.
Well, if it
On 21 June 2013 10:02, Dean Rasheed wrote:
> On 21 June 2013 06:16, David Fetter wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 12:10:25AM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>>> David Fetter escribió:
>>> > On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 08:59:27PM +0100, Dean Rasheed wrote:
>>>
>>> > > In my testing of sub-queries in the
On 21 June 2013 06:16, David Fetter wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 12:10:25AM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> David Fetter escribió:
>> > On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 08:59:27PM +0100, Dean Rasheed wrote:
>>
>> > > In my testing of sub-queries in the FILTER clause (an extension to the
>> > > spec), I
On 21 June 2013 05:01, David Fetter wrote:
> What tests do you think should be there that aren't?
>
I think I expected to see more tests related to some of the specific
code changes, such as
CREATE TABLE t AS SELECT * FROM generate_series(1,10) t(x);
-- Should fail (filter can't be used for non
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 12:10:25AM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> David Fetter escribió:
> > On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 08:59:27PM +0100, Dean Rasheed wrote:
>
> > > In my testing of sub-queries in the FILTER clause (an extension to the
> > > spec), I was able to produce the following error:
> >
> >
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 12:10:25AM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> David Fetter escribió:
> > On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 08:59:27PM +0100, Dean Rasheed wrote:
>
> > > In my testing of sub-queries in the FILTER clause (an extension
> > > to the spec), I was able to produce the following error:
> >
> >
David Fetter escribió:
> On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 08:59:27PM +0100, Dean Rasheed wrote:
> > In my testing of sub-queries in the FILTER clause (an extension to the
> > spec), I was able to produce the following error:
>
> Per the spec,
>
> B) A shall not contain a , a function>, or an outer ref
On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 08:59:27PM +0100, Dean Rasheed wrote:
> On 17 June 2013 06:36, David Fetter wrote:
> >> > > Please find attached two versions of a patch which provides optional
> >> > > FILTER clause for aggregates (T612, "Advanced OLAP operations").
> >> > >
> >> > > The first is intended
On 17 June 2013 06:36, David Fetter wrote:
>> > > Please find attached two versions of a patch which provides optional
>> > > FILTER clause for aggregates (T612, "Advanced OLAP operations").
>> > >
>> > > The first is intended to be applied on top of the previous patch, the
>> > > second without i
On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 01:29:41PM -0700, David Fetter wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 01:09:30PM -0800, David Fetter wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 06:45:31AM -0800, David Fetter wrote:
> > > On Sat, Feb 09, 2013 at 11:59:22PM -0800, David Fetter wrote:
> > > > Folks,
> > > >
> > > > Per sug
On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 01:09:30PM -0800, David Fetter wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 06:45:31AM -0800, David Fetter wrote:
> > On Sat, Feb 09, 2013 at 11:59:22PM -0800, David Fetter wrote:
> > > Folks,
> > >
> > > Per suggestions and lots of help from Andrew Gierth, please find
> > > attached a
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 06:45:31AM -0800, David Fetter wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 09, 2013 at 11:59:22PM -0800, David Fetter wrote:
> > Folks,
> >
> > Per suggestions and lots of help from Andrew Gierth, please find
> > attached a patch to clean up the call sites for FuncCall nodes, which
> > I'd like t
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 06:45:31AM -0800, David Fetter wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 09, 2013 at 11:59:22PM -0800, David Fetter wrote:
> > Folks,
> >
> > Per suggestions and lots of help from Andrew Gierth, please find
> > attached a patch to clean up the call sites for FuncCall nodes, which
> > I'd like t
29 matches
Mail list logo
