| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Rethinking representation of partial-aggregate steps |
| Date: | 2016-06-25 16:07:50 |
| Message-ID: | 1473.1466870870@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
I wrote:
> David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
>> The attached implements this, with the exception that I didn't really
>> think AggPartialMode was the best name for the enum. I've named this
>> AggregateMode instead, as the aggregate is only partial in some cases.
> Hm. We already have an AggStrategy (for hashed vs. grouped aggregation)
> so adding AggregateMode beside it seems somewhere between confusing and
> content-free. And it's needlessly inconsistent with the spelling of the
> existing enum name. I'm not wedded to "AggPartialMode" but I think
> we need some name that's a bit more specific than "AggregateMode".
> Suggestions anyone?
After a bit of thought, maybe AggDivision or AggSplit or something
along those lines?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2016-06-25 17:30:03 | Better solution to final adjustment of combining Aggrefs |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2016-06-25 15:56:51 | Re: Rethinking representation of partial-aggregate steps |