Re: FILTER for aggregates [was Re: Department of Redundancy Department: makeNode(FuncCall) division]

Andrew Gierth <andrew@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.
        regards, tom lane