From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | ian link <ian(at)ilink(dot)io> |
Cc: | Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Hitoshi Harada <umi(dot)tanuki(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Support for RANGE ... PRECEDING windows in OVER |
Date: | 2013-07-01 18:39:43 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoaN4LwxfaUFb=KOw+srXH4OMO8kgta=_Kuh9VWk9Os7RA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 11:54 PM, ian link <ian(at)ilink(dot)io> wrote:
> I found some time and I think I am up to speed now. I finally figured out
> how to add new operator strategies and made a little test operator for
> myself.
>
> It seems pretty clear that assuming '+' and '-' are addition and subtraction
> is a bad idea. I don't think it would be too tricky to add support for new
> operator strategies. Andrew Gierth suggested calling these new strategies
> "offset -" and "offset +", which I think describes it pretty well. I
> assigned the operator itself to be "@+" and "@-" but that can obviously be
> changed. If this sounds like a good path to you guys, I will go ahead and
> implement the operators for the appropriate types. Please let me know if I
> am misunderstanding something - I am still figuring stuff out :)
I don't think I understand the design you have in mind. I'm actually
not clear that it would be all that bad to assume fixed operator
names, as we apparently do in a few places despite the existence of
operator classes. But if that is bad, then I don't know how using @+
and @- instead helps anything.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2013-07-01 18:40:53 | Re: changeset generation v5-01 - Patches & git tree |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2013-07-01 18:36:43 | Re: review: Non-recursive processing of AND/OR lists |