Fabien COELHO wrote:
> (1) boolean-and and boolean-or aggregates named bool_and and bool_or.
> they (SHOULD;-) correspond to standard sql every and some/any aggregates.
> they do not have the right name as there is a problem with
> the standard and the parser for some/any. Tom also think that
> the standard name is misleading because NULL are ignored.
As I understand it, there's an ambiguity issue with SOME/ANY, but not
with EVERY. If so, can we implement EVERY per-spec at least? It's okay
if we just add EVERY as an alias for BOOL_AND for the sake of homogeneity.
A few trivial points:
> + /* EVERY aggregate implementation conforming to SQL 2003 standard.
> + * must be strict.
> + */
This comment is misleading if we don't actually provide an
implementation of EVERY that conforms to spec. There's a similar comment
WRT to SOME/ANY.
> + PG_FUNCTION_INFO_V1(booland_statefunc);
Not needed for builtin functions (they are assumed to be V1).
> + /* what about every? */
> + DATA(insert OID = 2517 ( bool_and PGNSP PGUID 12 t f f f i 1 16 "16" _null_ aggregate_dummy
-_null_ ));
> + DESCR("boolean-and aggregate");
> + /* what about any/some? */
Seems these questions should be removed, no?
-Neil
