Tom Lane wrote: > David Fetter <da...@fetter.org> writes: > > Revised patch attached. \dw does not need an 'S' decorator, > > Yes it does. We have only painfully gotten to the point of having > consistent behavior across all the \d commands. We are not going > to break that consistency before it's even shipped. > > Perhaps more to the point: the previous round of discussion about this > already rejected the idea of treating window functions as a category > fundamentally separate from plain functions --- that is, we are not > following the "aggregate" model of having separate commands for > aggregate functions. So it's not apparent to me that a separate \dw > command is a good solution to start with.
Yea, I thought we were going to do this: > > Please find enclosed one way to handle it, this being prepending > > WINDOW to the result types in \df. but I don't see this behavior in CVS. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
