Re: WITHIN GROUP patch
От | Andrew Gierth |
---|---|
Тема | Re: WITHIN GROUP patch |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 87fvq5g078.fsf@news-spur.riddles.org.uk обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: WITHIN GROUP patch (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: WITHIN GROUP patch
Re: WITHIN GROUP patch |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
>>>>> "Tom" == Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> 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 forTom> declaration and display purposes: Tom> type1, type2 ORDER BY type3, type4 Tom> This has nearly as much relationship to the actual callingTom> 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)
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: