"Jim C. Nasby" <jim@nasby.net> writes:
> On Mon, Oct 09, 2006 at 01:49:37PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> This is exactly the slippery slope I don't care to start down.
> I guess I'm confused as to how this is any different from other
> functions where we've provided multiple input arguments, such as the
> aggregate functions.
The salient reason is that the spec only defines width_bucket for numeric
input arguments, whereas stuff like max/min is defined *by the spec* for
other data types.
Since there's no spec-based argument for allowing width_bucket for other
datatypes, and only an (IMHO) very weak use-case for it, I don't think
we should add the clutter.
regards, tom lane
