From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | "Greg Stark" <greg(dot)stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "Hitoshi Harada" <umi(dot)tanuki(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Window-functions patch handling of aggregates |
Date: | 2008-12-26 21:30:20 |
Message-ID: | 15584.1230327020@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Unfortunately, if we don't want to add an explicit iswindowable flag
> (and I understand that that's ugly), then I think this is the way to
> go. It's a shame that people will have to make code changes, but
> inventing a fake AggState object just to get around this problem
> sounds worse. The array_agg code is new and the fact that it doesn't
> follow the design pattern should be considered a bug in that code
> rather than a justification for an ugly workaround.
Well, array_agg may be new but it's simply a re-implementation of a
design pattern that existed in contrib/intagg since 7.3 or so. I have
no problem with fixing array_agg --- what I'm wondering about is who
has copied intagg before.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2008-12-26 21:41:01 | Re: Frames vs partitions: is SQL2008 completely insane? |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2008-12-26 21:04:34 | Frames vs partitions: is SQL2008 completely insane? |