Re: Sharing aggregate states between different aggregate functions - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Sharing aggregate states between different aggregate functions
Date
Msg-id 16503.1438105027@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Sharing aggregate states between different aggregate functions  (Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi>)
List pgsql-hackers
Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi> writes:
> On 07/28/2015 07:18 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi> writes:
>>> BTW, we're also not checking if the transition or final functions are
>>> volatile. But that was the same before this patch too.

>> Up to now it hasn't mattered.

> Yes, it has. We combine identical aggregates even without this patch. 

Ah, right, how'd I forget about that?

> No-one's complained so far, and I can't think of a use case for a 
> volatile transition or final function, so maybe it's not worth worrying 
> about. Then again, checking for the volatility of those functions would 
> be easy too.

Given the lack of complaints, I tend to agree that it's not the province
of this patch to make a change in that policy.
        regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Heikki Linnakangas
Date:
Subject: Re: Sharing aggregate states between different aggregate functions
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Shouldn't we document "don't use a mountpoint as $PGDATA"?