On Sat, Jul 06, 2013 at 11:49:21AM +0100, Dean Rasheed wrote:
On 5 July 2013 18:23, David Fetter da...@fetter.org 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
On 5 July 2013 18:23, David Fetter da...@fetter.org 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
On Mon, Jul 01, 2013 at 05:30:38PM +0100, Dean Rasheed wrote:
On 1 July 2013 01:44, David Fetter da...@fetter.org wrote:
On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 09:22:52PM +0100, Dean Rasheed wrote:
On 21 June 2013 06:16, David Fetter da...@fetter.org wrote:
Please find attached a patch which allows
On 1 July 2013 01:44, David Fetter da...@fetter.org wrote:
On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 09:22:52PM +0100, Dean Rasheed wrote:
On 21 June 2013 06:16, David Fetter da...@fetter.org wrote:
Please find attached a patch which allows subqueries in the FILTER
clause and adds regression testing for same.
On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 09:22:52PM +0100, Dean Rasheed wrote:
On 21 June 2013 06:16, David Fetter da...@fetter.org 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
On 21 June 2013 06:16, David Fetter da...@fetter.org 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
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
On 26 June 2013 01:01, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com 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,
2013/6/26 Dean Rasheed dean.a.rash...@gmail.com:
On 26 June 2013 01:01, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com 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
On 24 June 2013 03:50, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
David Fetter da...@fetter.org 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
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
2013/6/25 Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us:
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.
On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 10:50 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
David Fetter da...@fetter.org 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
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
On 21 June 2013 10:02, Dean Rasheed dean.a.rash...@gmail.com wrote:
On 21 June 2013 06:16, David Fetter da...@fetter.org 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
Dean Rasheed dean.a.rash...@gmail.com 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
On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 07:44:26AM -0700, Kevin Grittner wrote:
Dean Rasheed dean.a.rash...@gmail.com 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
David Fetter da...@fetter.org 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
On 21 June 2013 05:01, David Fetter da...@fetter.org 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
On 21 June 2013 06:16, David Fetter da...@fetter.org 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),
On 17 June 2013 06:36, David Fetter da...@fetter.org 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 it.
On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 08:59:27PM +0100, Dean Rasheed wrote:
On 17 June 2013 06:36, David Fetter da...@fetter.org 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
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 filter clause shall not contain a query expression, a window
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:
Per the
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:
Per the
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 suggestions and lots
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 patch to
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 to expand
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 to expand
29 matches
Mail list logo
