Re: Closing some 8.4 open items

From: Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk>
To: tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us (Tom Lane), david(at)fetter(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Closing some 8.4 open items
Date: 2009-04-11 04:54:34
Message-ID: 871vrzhjsl.fsf@news-spur.riddles.org.uk
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

>>>>> "Tom" == Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:

>>> Perhaps more to the point: the previous round of discussion about
>>> this already rejected the idea of treating window functions as a
>>> category fundamentally separate from plain functions --- that is,
>>> we are not following the "aggregate" model of having separate
>>> commands for aggregate functions.

>> I hadn't seen any such a consensus.

Tom> We do not have CREATE WINDOW FUNCTION, DROP WINDOW FUNCTION,
Tom> ALTER WINDOW FUNCTION, etc. If psql uses \dw it will be
Tom> presenting a different world view than exists at the SQL level.

I'm not sure why that would matter. The fact that it is CREATE
FUNCTION ... WINDOW rather than CREATE WINDOW FUNCTION doesn't mean
that window functions aren't a distinctly different animal to normal
functions. The usage and syntax is different enough that putting them
all together under \df seems forced.

--
Andrew (irc:RhodiumToad)

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jaime Casanova 2009-04-11 05:13:00 Re: Allow COMMENT ON to accept an expression rather than just a string
Previous Message Abhijit Menon-Sen 2009-04-11 04:47:47 Allow COMMENT ON to accept an expression rather than just a string