Tomas Vondra <tv@fuzzy.cz> writes:
> On 25.4.2014 23:26, Tom Lane wrote:
>> The problem is that the CREATE AGGREGATE syntax only specifies the
>> name of the final function, not its argument list, so you have to
>> make an assumption about the argument list in order to look up the
>> final function in the first place.
> Yeah. And it wouldn't be clear which function to use in case two
> suitable functions (with different signatures) exist. So I guess this
> actually requires a parameter.
Exactly.
> I'd vote for "finalfunc_extra" - can't think of a better name, and I'm
> not sure what the "m" in "mfinalfunc_extra" stands for.
Sorry for not being clear. The "m" version is the alternate setting for
the moving-aggregate sub-implementation, which is new as of a couple weeks
ago:
http://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=commitdiff;h=a9d9acbf219b9e96585779cd5f99d674d4ccba74
regards, tom lane
