| From: | Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Atri Sharma <atri(dot)jiit(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Vik Fearing <vik(dot)fearing(at)dalibo(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: WITHIN GROUP patch |
| Date: | 2013-12-06 21:06:55 |
| Message-ID: | 87fvq5g078.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:
>> Please don't object that that doesn't look exactly like the syntax
>> for calling the function, because it doesn't anyway --- remember
>> you also need ORDER BY in the call.
Tom> Actually, now that I think of it, why not use this syntax for
Tom> declaration and display purposes:
Tom> type1, type2 ORDER BY type3, type4
Tom> This has nearly as much relationship to the actual calling
Tom> syntax as the WITHIN GROUP proposal does,
But unfortunately it looks exactly like the calling sequence for a
normal aggregate with an order by clause - I really think that is
potentially too much confusion. (It's one thing not to look like
the calling syntax, it's another to look exactly like a valid
calling sequence for doing something _different_.)
--
Andrew (irc:RhodiumToad)
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Johnston | 2013-12-06 21:21:10 | Re: WITHIN GROUP patch |
| Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2013-12-06 21:04:10 | Re: Reference to parent query from ANY sublink |