From: | Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Hitoshi Harada <umi(dot)tanuki(at)gmail(dot)com>, ITAGAKI Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Window Functions: v07 APIs and buffering strateties |
Date: | 2008-10-28 17:37:23 |
Message-ID: | 20081028173723.GA17203@svana.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 12:38:09PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Hitoshi Harada" <umi(dot)tanuki(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > In window specifications, we have
>
> > OVER (ORDER BY expr_list [(ROWS|RANGE) ... ])
>
> > and currently "ROWS" is not reserved so bison is confused with cases
> > of "ROWS" included in expr_list and in FRAME clause. Because there is
> > no delimiter between ORDER BY clause and FRAME (that is (ROWS |
> > RANGE)) clause, "ROWS" can be in expr_list as a_expr.
>
> Right offhand, I don't see any alternative but to make both ROWS and
> RANGE reserved. It's pretty annoying since that might break existing
> applications that have been using these as identifiers, but the SQL
> committee seems to care little about that :-(
Given that the only problematic case is if expr_list ends with a
postfix operator, wouldn't it be sufficient to simply decree that in
that case you need parentheses? Seems a lot less painful than adding
two reserved words.
Have a nice day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> http://svana.org/kleptog/
> Please line up in a tree and maintain the heap invariant while
> boarding. Thank you for flying nlogn airlines.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Hannu Krosing | 2008-10-28 17:46:42 | Re: PostgreSQL + Replicator developer meeting 10/28 |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2008-10-28 17:36:30 | Re: Updating FSM on recovery |