Re: Rethinking representation of partial-aggregate steps

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: 2016-06-26 20:31:46
Message-ID: 16222.1466973106@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

I wrote:
> [ shrug... ] I do not buy that argument, because it doesn't justify
> the COMBINE option: why shouldn't that be inverted, ie USEFINALFUNC?

Sorry, I meant USETRANSFUNC of course.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Geoghegan 2016-06-26 20:37:46 Re: parallel workers and client encoding
Previous Message Tom Lane 2016-06-26 20:28:32 Re: Rethinking representation of partial-aggregate steps