Re: Window-functions patch handling of aggregates

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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?