On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 11:59:22AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > I wrote: > > You could certainly argue the classification either way, but I > > think that we should make a hard decision now: either window > > functions are treated as a distinct object type (implying their > > own set of command names and nuisance errors if you use the wrong > > one), or they are not a distinct object type (implying that WINDOW > > is an attribute for CREATE FUNCTION and not part of the command > > name). If we are wishy-washy about it and treat WINDOW as just a > > noise word in some contexts then we will have user confusion. The > > precedent that is bothering me here is all the user confusion that > > has ensued over whether you can use ALTER TABLE to operate on > > sequences and views. > > Apparently that analogy didn't impress anyone but me. AFAICT the > majority opinion is that we should use the syntax > > create [or replace] [window] function ... > > but just ignore the distinction between regular functions and window > functions for all other function-related SQL commands. Barring further > discussion, I'll make that happen in the next day or two.
Presumably psql should know about this change. Should \df now include windowing functions along with a boolean column that indicates whether a function is a windowing function? Should there be \dw[+] instead? In either case, should the S option indicating "include system functions only when S is present" (e.g. \dwS) apply? I'm thinking yes on that last one. Cheers, David. -- David Fetter <da...@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/ Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fet...@gmail.com Remember to vote! Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
