From: | "Hitoshi Harada" <umi(dot)tanuki(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | "Heikki Linnakangas" <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "David Rowley" <dgrowley(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Windowing Function Patch Review -> Standard Conformance |
Date: | 2008-12-21 06:04:06 |
Message-ID: | e08cc0400812202204q24d045f5pa1a64c661aabd5d3@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
2008/12/21 Hitoshi Harada <umi(dot)tanuki(at)gmail(dot)com>:
> 2008/12/20 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
>> I've been studying the grammar for the windowing patch a bit. It seems
>> to me that the <existing window name> option for <window specification>
>> got left out. I think that WindowDef needs to have two name fields,
>> one for the name (if any) defined by the window definition, and one
>> for the referenced window name if any. Also the "OVER name" syntax
>> seems like it maps to a referenced window name not a defined window
>> name.
>
> I completely missed this issue. If the <existing window name> is
> allowed in <window clause>, then does it mean this is possible?
>
> SELECT row_number() OVER w2 FROM t
> WINDOW w1 AS (PARTITION BY grp), w2(w1)
>
> And what if w1 refers to w2 and w2 refers to w1 cyclicly? And from
> what I read the spec, it seems to me that it effects only frame clause
> which is unlikely implemented for 8.4, because if <existing window
> name) is specified then <partition clause> and <order by clause> are
> both permitted in the window definition.
both "not" permitted in the window definition.
Sorry for my mistake.
--
Hitoshi Harada
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2008-12-21 08:19:25 | Re: Hot standby and b-tree killed items |
Previous Message | Hitoshi Harada | 2008-12-21 06:02:17 | Re: Windowing Function Patch Review -> Standard Conformance |