Re: WITHIN GROUP patch

Andrew Gierth wrote
>>>>>> "Tom" == Tom Lane <

> tgl(at)(dot)pa

> > writes:
>
> >> Please don't object that that doesn't look exactly like the syntax
> >> for calling the function, because it doesn't anyway --- remember
> >> you also need ORDER BY in the call.
>
> Tom> Actually, now that I think of it, why not use this syntax for
> Tom> declaration and display purposes:
>
> Tom> type1, type2 ORDER BY type3, type4
>
> Tom> This has nearly as much relationship to the actual calling
> Tom> syntax as the WITHIN GROUP proposal does,
>
> But unfortunately it looks exactly like the calling sequence for a
> normal aggregate with an order by clause - I really think that is
> potentially too much confusion. (It's one thing not to look like
> the calling syntax, it's another to look exactly like a valid
> calling sequence for doing something _different_.)
>
> --
> Andrew (irc:RhodiumToad)

How about:

type1, type2 GROUP ORDER type3, type4

OR

GROUP type1, type2 ORDER type3, type4

David J.

--
View this message in context: http://postgresql.1045698.n5.nabble.com/Re-WITHIN-GROUP-patch-tp5773851p5782202.html
Sent from the PostgreSQL - hackers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.