Re: Closing some 8.4 open items

2009/4/11 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
>> Yea, I thought we were going to do this:
>
>> Please find enclosed one way to handle it, this being prepending
>> WINDOW to the result types in \df.
>
>> but I don't see this behavior in CVS.
>
> IIRC, my original proposal involved adding something to the argument
> list --- it seems more natural to regard window-ness as having something
> to do with the arguments than the result.  But that was shot down on the
> grounds of not fitting in well unless we wanted to add more decoration,
> like parens around the regular argument list.

And someone has claimed the argument column won't fit the syntax of
DROP FUNCTION, which is not sure to be harmful or not.

> Another idea was to add a new column to the \df output to mark
> window-ness.  Which, as I recall, *nobody* liked.  But maybe if we
> only did it for \df+ it would be more tolerable?

The only negative opinion of this is added column is useful for only
window function so far. And nobody can find the future possible
extension by this column.

So I'm +1 for "do nothing now", and let's wait for users reactions.
The changes for this in the future seems not so painful.

Regards,

--
Hitoshi Harada