On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 03:48:33PM +0900, Hitoshi Harada wrote: > 2009/4/11 Andrew Gierth <[email protected]>: > >>>>>> "Tom" == Tom Lane <[email protected]> writes: > > > > >>> 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. > > > > Tom> We do not have CREATE WINDOW FUNCTION, DROP WINDOW FUNCTION, > > Tom> ALTER WINDOW FUNCTION, etc. If psql uses \dw it will be > > Tom> presenting a different world view than exists at the SQL level. > > > > I'm not sure why that would matter. The fact that it is CREATE > > FUNCTION ... WINDOW rather than CREATE WINDOW FUNCTION doesn't mean > > that window functions aren't a distinctly different animal to normal > > functions. The usage and syntax is different enough that putting them > > all together under \df seems forced. > > Yeah, but all the window functions are stored in pg_proc.
So are aggregate functions, and they have their own separate way of being addressed in psql :) Cheers, David. -- David Fetter <[email protected]> http://fetter.org/ Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter Skype: davidfetter XMPP: [email protected] Remember to vote! Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list ([email protected]) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
