Re: FILTER for aggregates [was Re: Department of Redundancy Department: makeNode(FuncCall) division]

Tom Lane said:
> Agreed, separating out the function-call-with-trailing-declaration
> syntaxes so they aren't considered in FROM and index_elem seems like
> the best compromise.
>
> If we do that for window function OVER clauses as well, can we make
> OVER less reserved?

Yes.

At least, I tried it with both OVER and FILTER unreserved and there
were no grammar conflicts (and I didn't have to do anything fancy to
avoid them), and it passed regression with the exception of the
changed error message for window functions in the from-clause.

So is this the final decision on how to proceed? It seems good to me,
and I can work with David to get it done.

-- 
Andrew (irc:RhodiumToad)