On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 03:48:33PM +0900, Hitoshi Harada wrote:
> 2009/4/11 Andrew Gierth <andrew@tao11.riddles.org.uk>:
> >>>>>> "Tom" == Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> 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 <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