Re: WIP Patch for GROUPING SETS phase 1

From: Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, Atri Sharma <atri(dot)jiit(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: WIP Patch for GROUPING SETS phase 1
Date: 2014-08-21 15:05:54
Message-ID: CAFj8pRAAH5tnQEj8OyikoUGNo-UWFvULquNFs+J6kRFkCZGL0w@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

2014-08-21 17:00 GMT+02:00 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:

> Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk> writes:
> > "Heikki" == Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com> writes:
> > Heikki> I think we should bite the bullet and rename the extension,
>
> > I agree, the contrib/cube patch as posted is purely so we could test
> > everything without having to argue over the new name first.
>
> I wonder if you've tried hard enough to avoid reserving the keyword.
>
> I think that the cube extension is not going to be the only casualty
> if "cube" becomes a reserved word --- that seems like a name that
> could be in use in lots of applications. ("What do you mean, 9.5
> breaks our database for tracking office space?") It would be worth
> quite a bit of effort to avoid that.
>

My prototypes worked without reserved keywords if I remember well

but analyzer is relatively complex

Pavel

>
> regards, tom lane
>
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
>

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2014-08-21 15:15:24 Hardening pg_upgrade
Previous Message Andrew Gierth 2014-08-21 15:01:16 Re: WIP Patch for GROUPING SETS phase 1