On 19 Srpen 2014, 9:52, Jeff Davis wrote:
> On Fri, 2014-08-15 at 13:53 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> I think that's right, and I rather like your (Jeff's) approach. It's
>> definitely true that we could do better if we have a mechanism for
>> serializing and deserializing group states, but (1) I think an awful
>> lot of cases would get an awful lot better even just with the approach
>> proposed here and (2) I doubt we would make the
>> serialization/deserialization interfaces mandatory, so even if we had
>> that we'd probably want a fallback strategy anyway.
>
> Thank you for taking a look.
>
> To solve the problem for array_agg, that would open up two potentially
> lengthy discussions:
>
> 1. Trying to support non-serialized representations (like
> ArrayBuildState for array_agg) as a real type rather than using
> "internal".
That's certainly an option, and it's quite straightforward. The downside
of it is that you either prevent the aggregates from using the most
efficient state form (e.g. the array_agg might use a simple array as a
state) or you cause a proliferation of types with no other purpose.
> 2. What changes should we make to the aggregate API? As long as we're
> changing/extending it, should we go the whole way and support partial
> aggregation[1] (particularly useful for parallelism)?
Maybe, but not in this patch please. That's far wider scope, and while
considering it when designing API changes is probably a good idea, we
should resist the attempt to do those two things in the same patch.
> Both of those discussions are worth having, and perhaps they can happen
> in parallel as I wrap up this patch.
Exactly.
> I'll see whether I can get consensus that my approach is (potentially)
> commit-worthy, and your statement that it (potentially) solves a real
> problem is a big help.
IMHO it's a step in the right direction. It may not go as far as I'd like,
but that's OK.
regards
Tomas
