| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Hitoshi Harada <umi(dot)tanuki(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Sample of user-define window function and other things |
| Date: | 2009-01-12 14:42:37 |
| Message-ID: | 29645.1231771357@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> Even if they can support it shouldn't they reject functions that aren't
> actually window functions? What happens if you mark a perfectly normal
> function as a window function, does it behave sanely?
Yes, for small values of "sane". It will see all its arguments as NULL
(and will get called even if it was marked STRICT). Whatever it returns
under those circumstances is what the result will be.
I do not offhand see a reasonable interpretation for the combination of
WINDOW and STRICT attributes, so perhaps it'd be sensible for CREATE
FUNCTION to throw an error for that.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bernd Helmle | 2009-01-12 14:49:36 | Re: WIP: Automatic view update rules |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2009-01-12 14:36:43 | Re: Recovery Test Framework |