Re: Add RANGE with values and exclusions clauses to the Window Functions
| От | Oliver Ford |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Add RANGE with values and exclusions clauses to the Window Functions |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CAGMVOdtkUxmN8iLF5cQSF7+8kZA_fDYuBBcN0BvjDKbOjCvUdw@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Add RANGE with values and exclusions clauses to the Window Functions (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Add RANGE with values and exclusions clauses to the Window Functions
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Monday, 29 January 2018, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
Oliver Ford <ojford@gmail.com> writes:
> On Monday, 29 January 2018, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> I've started to go through this in some detail, and I'm wondering why
>> you invented a FRAMEOPTION_EXCLUDE_NO_OTHERS option bit rather than
>> just representing that choice as default (0).
> My guess is that it's a little like putting "ORDER BY x ASC" when ASC is
> usually default behavior - it adds some documentation, perhaps for people
> new to SQL or to make your intention more explicit. That's the only reason
> I can think of as to why the standards committee included it.
Yeah, they like to do that. And "ORDER BY x ASC" is actually a precise
precedent, because we don't print ASC either, cf get_rule_orderby().
regards, tom lane
I would strongly suggest taking it out entirely then. There really doesn't seem a point in adding a new keyword and a new condition in the grammar if it is going to do absolutely nothing.
If anyone thinks it's useful to have I can just take it out of ruleutils and remove its define. But personally I would remove it entirely as it's really just clutter.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: