On 27 June 2013 15:05, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Andrew Gierth <and...@tao11.riddles.org.uk> writes: >> Tom Lane said: >>> Agreed, separating out the function-call-with-trailing-declaration >>> syntaxes so they aren't considered in FROM and index_elem seems like >>> the best compromise. >>> >>> If we do that for window function OVER clauses as well, can we make >>> OVER less reserved? > >> Yes. > >> At least, I tried it with both OVER and FILTER unreserved and there >> were no grammar conflicts (and I didn't have to do anything fancy to >> avoid them), and it passed regression with the exception of the >> changed error message for window functions in the from-clause. > >> So is this the final decision on how to proceed? It seems good to me, >> and I can work with David to get it done. > > Yeah, please submit a separate patch that just refactors the existing > grammar as above; that'll simplify reviewing. >
In that case, I'll re-review the latest FILTER patch over the weekend on the understanding that the reserved/unreserved keyword issue will be resolved in separate patch. 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
