Re: WITHIN GROUP patch

Andrew Gierth wrote
>>>>>> "Tom" == Tom Lane <

> tgl@.pa

> > writes:
> 
>  >> Please don't object that that doesn't look exactly like the syntax
>  >> for calling the function, because it doesn't anyway --- remember
>  >> you also need ORDER BY in the call.
> 
>  Tom> Actually, now that I think of it, why not use this syntax for
>  Tom> declaration and display purposes:
> 
>  Tom>     type1, type2 ORDER BY type3, type4
> 
>  Tom> This has nearly as much relationship to the actual calling
>  Tom> syntax as the WITHIN GROUP proposal does,
> 
> But unfortunately it looks exactly like the calling sequence for a
> normal aggregate with an order by clause - I really think that is
> potentially too much confusion. (It's one thing not to look like
> the calling syntax, it's another to look exactly like a valid
> calling sequence for doing something _different_.)
> 
> -- 
> Andrew (irc:RhodiumToad)

How about:

type1, type2 GROUP ORDER type3, type4

OR

GROUP type1, type2 ORDER type3, type4

David J.






--
View this message in context: http://postgresql.1045698.n5.nabble.com/Re-WITHIN-GROUP-patch-tp5773851p5782202.html
Sent from the PostgreSQL - hackers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.