2013/6/26 Dean Rasheed <dean.a.rash...@gmail.com>: > On 26 June 2013 01:01, Josh Berkus <j...@agliodbs.com> wrote: >> >>> I know it's heresy in these parts, but maybe we should consider >>> adopting a non-spec syntax for this feature? In particular, it's >>> really un-obvious why the FILTER clause shouldn't be inside rather >>> than outside the aggregate's parens, like ORDER BY. >> >> Well, what other DBMSes support this feature? Will being non-spec >> introduce migration pain? >> > > I can't find any, but that doesn't mean they don't exist, or aren't > being worked on. > > To recap, the options currently on offer are: > > 1). Make FILTER a new partially reserved keyword, accepting that that > might break some users' application code. > > 2). Make FILTER unreserved, accepting that that will lead to syntax > errors rather than more specific error messages if the user tries to > use an aggregate/window function with FILTER or OVER in the FROM > clause of a query, or as an index expression. > > 3). Adopt a non-standard syntax for this feature, accepting that that > might conflict with other databases, and that we can never then claim > to have implemented T612, "Advanced OLAP operations". > > 4). Some other parser hack that will offer a better compromise? > > > My preference is for (2) as the lesser of several evils --- it's a > fairly narrow case where the quality of the error message is reduced. >
@2 looks well Pavel > Regards, > Dean > > > -- > Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers