pg.ddx.io  pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org mailing list archive  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Oliver Ford <ojford@gmail.com>
Cc: David G. Johnston <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>
Cc: Erik Rijkers <er@xs4all.nl>
Cc: Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Add RANGE with values and exclusions clauses to the Window Functions
Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2018 23:27:42 -0400
Message-ID: <22106.1528428462@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <dff3d555-bea4-ac24-29b2-29521b9d08e8@2ndquadrant.com>
References: <CAGMVOdu9sivPAxbNN0X+q19Sfv9edEPv=HibOJhB14TJv_RCQg@mail.gmail.com>
	<10568.1517261334@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<CAGMVOdtJZCXQRO1HQvGWTfzxrP0cTtxWXfXJ58EC2f2GgSQ+9w@mail.gmail.com>
	<14068.1517266223@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<CAGMVOdtkUxmN8iLF5cQSF7+8kZA_fDYuBBcN0BvjDKbOjCvUdw@mail.gmail.com>
	<18875.1517272139@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<CAGMVOdv0G=cSEFdbP6om7920cd7d_GOin8H+dRi6jMpC_9C_2g@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAGMVOdtHgHbhKxZfduUbQNX8o5b0bTiCKV5A=PjTS7w6i8QFKw@mail.gmail.com>
	<c970520d467f2d49ca45c20a3f0a8533@xs4all.nl>
	<e0b02cb1e6412400c1def920f8f24d02@xs4all.nl>
	<CAGMVOdv5D67XaOWAys_cr8cFiq4z5ywKnQo1rovFW0tbnVyYuA@mail.gmail.com>
	<15869.1517443560@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<CAKFQuwZr9BiEr_kRmJwAE__k_O_fd5v0t0SDLykSJNB0ECe51w@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAGMVOduju1k4kbmsjCbYHDv=ghTf3X05sGzMtDTPzsjXUmr05Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAKFQuwbiM7TsopVvwQ59fgg31rFhNXxbgpSPRD72ASkehzCkcQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAGMVOduKGh6dazo-iyfYDvVRm_rv9ZorPLyE40daDyGR-w6vvg@mail.gmail.com>
	<17947.1517767809@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<dff3d555-bea4-ac24-29b2-29521b9! d08e8@2ndquadrant.com>

Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> On 2/4/18 13:10, Tom Lane wrote:
>> + 22013    E    ERRCODE_INVALID_PRECEDING_FOLLOWING_SIZE                       invalid_preceding_following_size

> I was checking the new error codes in PostgreSQL 11 and came across
> this.  The original name in the SQL standard is
> INVALID_PRECEDING_OR_FOLLOWING_SIZE_IN_WINDOW_FUNCTION
> which is reasonable to abbreviate, but is there a reason why we lost the
> "or"?

It seemed like a reasonable abbreviation to me.  If you disagree,
feel free to change it.

			regards, tom lane




view thread (45+ messages)

Message-ID: <22106.1528428462@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Permalink:  ../22106.1528428462@sss.pgh.pa.us/
Also on:    postgresql.org/message-id/22106.1528428462@sss.pgh.pa.us

 · 

reply
Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
  reply via email

  To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
  Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com, ojford@gmail.com, david.g.johnston@gmail.com, er@xs4all.nl
  Subject: Re: Add RANGE with values and exclusions clauses to the Window Functions
  In-Reply-To: <22106.1528428462@sss.pgh.pa.us>

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox