From: | Vik Fearing <vik(dot)fearing(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Oliver Ford <ojford(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Erik Rijkers <er(at)xs4all(dot)nl>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Add RANGE with values and exclusions clauses to the Window Functions |
Date: | 2018-01-09 23:47:59 |
Message-ID: | e42da773-f144-45c3-2a97-049baa896be6@2ndquadrant.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 01/09/2018 10:59 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Generally speaking, Postgres tries hard to be an extensible-datatype
> system, going beyond the SQL standard's minimum requirements when
> necessary to make it so. The reason that we don't already have RANGE
> PRECEDING/FOLLOWING support is that nobody was satisfied with only
> making it work for integers and datetimes. There was, as I recall, code
> implementing more or less what you've got here in the original window
> function submission, and we pulled it out before committing because of
> that inadequacy. I don't think the fact that some years have gone by
> means that we should forget about keeping the feature extensible.
I'm glad I read the thread before I replied. My biggest complaint I had
in my head when reading the initial post was that clamping down on
specific datatypes was distinctly non-PostgreSQL-esque.
I'm -1 on such a patch, even though I would really like this feature.
--
Vik Fearing +33 6 46 75 15 36
http://2ndQuadrant.fr PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2018-01-09 23:55:44 | Re: Add RANGE with values and exclusions clauses to the Window Functions |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2018-01-09 23:33:36 | Re: [HACKERS] dead or outdated URLs found in win32.h |