| From: | Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>, Hitoshi Harada <umi(dot)tanuki(at)gmail(dot)com>, Erik Rijkers <er(at)xs4all(dot)nl>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: review: More frame options in window functions |
| Date: | 2010-02-11 21:33:34 |
| Message-ID: | m24olnsbip.fsf@hi-media.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> However, what it *is* associated with is a sort ordering, and the notion
> that btree opclasses are what define orderings is sufficiently deeply
> wired into the system that undoing it would be a huge PITA. So unless
> we can see a pretty clear future need for more information in this
> category, I'm not really inclined to invent some new structure
> altogether. I'm just wondering if anyone does see that...
I think there's the associativity property of operators that we might
want to have someday, in order for the planner to know some more about
joins on A = B then on B = C, or replace with < if you will.
Regards,
--
dim
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-02-11 21:37:00 | Re: review: More frame options in window functions |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-02-11 21:31:38 | Re: review: More frame options in window functions |