Re: Rethinking representation of partial-aggregate steps - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Rethinking representation of partial-aggregate steps
Date
Msg-id 429.1467039628@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Rethinking representation of partial-aggregate steps  (David Rowley <david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
David Rowley <david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> I can't help wonder how plan to allow future expansions of
> non-serialized partial aggregates giving that in setrefs.c you're
> making a hard assumption that mark_partial_aggref() should always
> receive the SERIAL versions of the aggsplit.

What I was imagining, but didn't bother to implement immediately, is
that we could pass down the appropriate AggSplit value from the plan
node (using the context argument for the mutator function).  planner.c
likewise needs a bit more plumbing to generate such plan nodes in the
first place, so I didn't feel that setrefs.c had to be smarter right now.
        regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Broken handling of lwlocknames.h
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Parallelized polymorphic aggs, and aggtype vs aggoutputtype