Re: WITHIN GROUP patch - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: WITHIN GROUP patch
Date
Msg-id 18231.1386361308@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: WITHIN GROUP patch  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: WITHIN GROUP patch
List pgsql-hackers
I wrote:
> One possibility is to forget all the parens and say that the display
> looks like
>       type1, type2 WITHIN GROUP type3, type4
> 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.

Actually, now that I think of it, why not use this syntax for declaration
and display purposes:type1, type2 ORDER BY type3, type4
This has nearly as much relationship to the actual calling syntax as the
WITHIN GROUP proposal does, and it's hugely saner from a semantic
standpoint, because after all the ordering columns are ordering columns,
not grouping columns.
        regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: WITHIN GROUP patch
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_stat_statements: calls under-estimation propagation