>>>>> "Tom" == Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes:
>> Please don't object that that doesn't look exactly like the syntax>> for calling the function, because it doesn't
anyway--- remember>> you also need ORDER BY in the call.
Tom> Actually, now that I think of it, why not use this syntax forTom> declaration and display purposes:
Tom> type1, type2 ORDER BY type3, type4
Tom> This has nearly as much relationship to the actual callingTom> syntax as the WITHIN GROUP proposal does,
But unfortunately it looks exactly like the calling sequence for a
normal aggregate with an order by clause - I really think that is
potentially too much confusion. (It's one thing not to look like
the calling syntax, it's another to look exactly like a valid
calling sequence for doing something _different_.)
--
Andrew (irc:RhodiumToad)