Re: FILTER for aggregates [was Re: Department of Redundancy Department: makeNode(FuncCall) division]

Hello

2013/6/27 Andrew Gierth <andrew@tao11.riddles.org.uk>:
> Tom Lane said:
>> Agreed, separating out the function-call-with-trailing-declaration
>> syntaxes so they aren't considered in FROM and index_elem seems like
>> the best compromise.
>>
>> If we do that for window function OVER clauses as well, can we make
>> OVER less reserved?
>
> Yes.
>
> At least, I tried it with both OVER and FILTER unreserved and there
> were no grammar conflicts (and I didn't have to do anything fancy to
> avoid them), and it passed regression with the exception of the
> changed error message for window functions in the from-clause.
>
> So is this the final decision on how to proceed? It seems good to me,
> and I can work with David to get it done.
>

Isn't dangerous do OVER unreserved keyword??

Regards

Pavel

> --
> Andrew (irc:RhodiumToad)
>
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers