From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | David G Johnston <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Window function with valued based range frames? |
Date: | 2014-09-27 03:04:23 |
Message-ID: | 19402.1411787063@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
David G Johnston <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Just looking for recollection regarding why these were omitted initially and
> if anyone has concerned adding them in follow-up.
My recollection is that RANGE requires some data-type-specific behavior
that we don't have any provision for in PG's datatype extension framework
(something about increment/decrement I think, but too lazy to consult the
archives for details). The original window-function patch had some klugy
hard-wired behavior for a small set of datatypes, which we quite properly
rejected as not being up to project standards: datatype extensibility is
one of PG's defining features, and we're not going to give it up lightly.
Nobody's yet done the work to get something that would pass muster.
> With the recent
> hypothetical work being done maybe these can be re-evaluated in a fresh
> light?
AFAIK those functions are unrelated to this problem.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Nelson Green | 2014-09-27 10:47:58 | Re: password in recovery.conf [SOLVED] |
Previous Message | David G Johnston | 2014-09-27 02:55:49 | Window function with valued based range frames? |