Re: WITHIN GROUP patch - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Andrew Gierth
Subject Re: WITHIN GROUP patch
Date
Msg-id 87wqibxs01.fsf@news-spur.riddles.org.uk
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: WITHIN GROUP patch  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: WITHIN GROUP patch  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
>>>>> "Tom" == Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes:
>> Furthermore, I can't help noticing that the increased complexity>> has now pretty much negated your original
argumentsfor moving so>> much of the work out of nodeAgg.c.
 
Tom> The key reason for that was, and remains, not having theTom> behavior hard-wired in nodeAgg; I believe that this
designTom>permits things to be accomplished in aggregate implementationTom> functions that would not have been possible
withthe originalTom> patch.  I'm willing to accept some code growth to have thatTom> flexibility.
 

Do you have an actual use case?

-- 
Andrew (irc:RhodiumToad)



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: Bug in visibility map WAL-logging
Next
From: Matheus de Oliveira
Date:
Subject: Re: Bug in visibility map WAL-logging