Noah Misch said:
I twitched upon reading this, because neither ORDER BY nor FILTER preclude
the aggregate being MIN or MAX. Perhaps Andrew can explain why he put
aggorder there back in 2009.
The bottom line is that I intentionally avoided assuming that an agg with an
aggsortop could only be
On 27 June 2013 15:05, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Andrew Gierth and...@tao11.riddles.org.uk writes:
Tom Lane said:
Agreed, separating out the function-call-with-trailing-declaration
syntaxes so they aren't considered in FROM and index_elem seems like
the best compromise.
If we do
Tom Lane said:
Agreed, separating out the function-call-with-trailing-declaration
syntaxes so they aren't considered in FROM and index_elem seems like
the best compromise.
If we do that for window function OVER clauses as well, can we make
OVER less reserved?
Yes.
At least, I tried it with
Hello
2013/6/27 Andrew Gierth and...@tao11.riddles.org.uk:
Tom Lane said:
Agreed, separating out the function-call-with-trailing-declaration
syntaxes so they aren't considered in FROM and index_elem seems like
the best compromise.
If we do that for window function OVER clauses as well, can
Andrew Gierth and...@tao11.riddles.org.uk writes:
Tom Lane said:
Agreed, separating out the function-call-with-trailing-declaration
syntaxes so they aren't considered in FROM and index_elem seems like
the best compromise.
If we do that for window function OVER clauses as well, can we make
Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com writes:
Tom Lane said:
If we do that for window function OVER clauses as well, can we make
OVER less reserved?
Isn't dangerous do OVER unreserved keyword??
How so? The worst-case scenario is that we find we have to make it more
reserved again in some
Dean Rasheed said:
To recap, the options currently on offer are:
1). Make FILTER a new partially reserved keyword, accepting that that
might break some users' application code.
2). Make FILTER unreserved, accepting that that will lead to syntax
errors rather than more specific error
Andrew Gierth and...@tao11.riddles.org.uk writes:
Possibly significant in this context is that there is a proof-of-concept
patch in development for another part of T612, namely inverse
distribution functions (e.g. percentile_disc and percentile_cont) which
should be available by the next CF,
Greg Stark st...@mit.edu wrote:
On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 3:50 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Or maybe they really don't give a damn about breaking
applications every time they invent a new reserved word?
I think this is the obvious conclusion. In the standard the reserved
words are
