On 04.05.2017 23:13, Tom Lane wrote:
> I'm not against what you've done here, because I had no love for USING
> in this context anyway; it conveys approximately nothing to the mind
> about what is in the list it's introducing. But I'm concerned whether
> we're boxing ourselves in by using ON.
>
> Actually, "ON" doesn't seem all that mnemonic either. Maybe "FOR"
> would be a good substitute, if it turns out that "ON" has a problem?
The whole syntax reminds me of a regular SELECT clause. So, SELECT?
Also considering the most generic form of statistic support mentioned in
[1], one could even thing about allowing aggregates, windowing functions
etc, aka the full SELECT clause in the future.
Sven
[1]
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAEZATCUtGR+U5+QTwjHhe9rLG2nguEysHQ5NaqcK=VbJ78VQFA@mail.gmail.com
