| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Oliver Ford <ojford(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Erik Rijkers <er(at)xs4all(dot)nl>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Add RANGE with values and exclusions clauses to the Window Functions |
| Date: | 2018-01-29 22:50:23 |
| Message-ID: | 14068.1517266223@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Oliver Ford <ojford(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Monday, 29 January 2018, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> I've started to go through this in some detail, and I'm wondering why
>> you invented a FRAMEOPTION_EXCLUDE_NO_OTHERS option bit rather than
>> just representing that choice as default (0).
> My guess is that it's a little like putting "ORDER BY x ASC" when ASC is
> usually default behavior - it adds some documentation, perhaps for people
> new to SQL or to make your intention more explicit. That's the only reason
> I can think of as to why the standards committee included it.
Yeah, they like to do that. And "ORDER BY x ASC" is actually a precise
precedent, because we don't print ASC either, cf get_rule_orderby().
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Oliver Ford | 2018-01-29 23:05:39 | Re: Add RANGE with values and exclusions clauses to the Window Functions |
| Previous Message | Tomas Vondra | 2018-01-29 22:49:14 | Re: JIT compiling with LLVM v9.0 |