Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1eJfzC-0007yU-Jr for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 28 Nov 2017 13:31:42 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1eJfzC-0004aB-7b for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 28 Nov 2017 13:31:42 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1eJfzC-0004a0-0f for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Tue, 28 Nov 2017 13:31:42 +0000 Received: from xvm-110-146.dc2.ghst.net ([46.226.110.146] helo=fetter.org) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1eJfz4-0001my-9R for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Tue, 28 Nov 2017 13:31:41 +0000 Received: by fetter.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 5D0904171A; Tue, 28 Nov 2017 14:31:32 +0100 (CET) Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2017 14:31:32 +0100 From: David Fetter To: Oliver Ford Cc: Erik Rijkers , Pg Hackers Subject: Re: Add RANGE with values and exclusions clauses to the Window Functions Message-ID: <20171128133132.GA24037@fetter.org> References: <2c084c1c2bf599ceb2afa87874de8bc1@xs4all.nl> <20171128043828.GD5332@fetter.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Precedence: bulk On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 10:51:19AM +0000, Oliver Ford wrote: > On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 4:38 AM, David Fetter wrote: > > I've taken the liberty of adding float8, somewhat mechanically. Do > > the docs need some change, assuming that addition is useful? > > > > Best, > > David. > > -- > > David Fetter http://fetter.org/ > > Phone: +1 415 235 3778 > > The SQL:2011 standard says that the range values should only be an > integer or interval. My understanding is therefore that the ORDER BY > columns should only be either an integer, with integer range values - > or a date/time, with interval range values. > > I think if we go outside the standard we should leave it for another > patch and further discussion. But maybe others would prefer to add > support for more types even if they are non-standard? I confess I was thinking more in terms of the use cases I recall from back when I was training to be a scientist than the restrictions the standard imposed. Hapoy to make this extension separate if that's the consensus. Best, David. -- David Fetter http://fetter.org/ Phone: +1 415 235 3778 Remember to vote! Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate