Horton

Re: Proposal: QUALIFY clause

Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>

View thread
From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>
To: Vik Fearing <vik@postgresfriends.org>, Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.com>, Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>, Matheus Alcantara <matheusssilv97@gmail.com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org>
Date: 2025-07-22T15:26:12Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On 2025-07-22 Tu 11:14 AM, Vik Fearing wrote:
>
>
>> I agree that its own clause is best; I just greatly dislike QUALIFY.
>
>
> Sorry.
>

If we were making up our own syntax this would be a sensible thing to 
debate. If we're talking about implementing something we expect to be in 
the standard, I think we will have to live with what the standards 
committee decides, regardless of our preference. We've almost certainly 
been preempted here by other RDBMSs using QUALIFY, heedless of English 
grammar.


cheers


andrew


--
Andrew Dunstan
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com