On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 11:30:30AM -0400, 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.
I'd be happy to revert that part. > 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. I hadn't seen any such a consensus. If anything, the consensus seemed to be going toward the \da and not away from it, hence the revised patch. 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
