On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 11:30:30AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> David Fetter <david@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 <david@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fetter@gmail.com
Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate