Re: Declarative partitioning grammar

On Sat, Jan 12, 2008 at 05:47:30PM +0000, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Sat, 2008-01-12 at 01:59 +0100, Gavin Sherry wrote:
> > The syntax is half the problem, performance is the other.
> 
> The syntax looks great to me, but I think it is about 5% of the problem,
> maybe less. I don't really have any questions about the syntax, but I
> may have thoughts when the implementation details emerge.

Yes, that's for another thread. Since the discussion was abot using
grammar to control partitions I wanted to get some grammar out. More
details on other stuff soon.

> 
> I'm not sure you'll be able to use PARTITION BY since its part of the
> SQL Standard for Windowed grouping, which we do hope to implement one
> day. It will be confusing to have two completely separate meanings for
> the one phrase in our grammar.

I think it's fine. It doesn't cause conflicts in the grammar (in fact,
the Greenplum grammar implements both meanings right now with no
confusion).

Thanks,

Gavin