| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: FILTER for aggregates [was Re: Department of Redundancy Department: makeNode(FuncCall) division] |
| Date: | 2013-06-25 13:42:10 |
| Message-ID: | 8783.1372167730@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On 24 June 2013 03:50, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Going on the same principle, we could probably let FILTER be an
>> unreserved keyword while FILTER_FOLLOWED_BY_PAREN could be a
>> type_func_name_keyword. (I've not tried this though.)
> I've not tried either, but wouldn't that mean that "SELECT * FROM
> list_filters() filter" would be legal, whereas "SELECT * FROM
> list_filters() filter(id, val)" would be a syntax error? If so, I
> don't think that would be an improvement.
Hm, good point. The SQL committee really managed to choose some
unfortunate syntax here, didn't they.
I know it's heresy in these parts, but maybe we should consider
adopting a non-spec syntax for this feature? In particular, it's
really un-obvious why the FILTER clause shouldn't be inside rather
than outside the aggregate's parens, like ORDER BY.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2013-06-25 13:50:42 | Re: FILTER for aggregates [was Re: Department of Redundancy Department: makeNode(FuncCall) division] |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2013-06-25 13:31:31 | Re: PostgreSQL 9.3 latest dev snapshot |