Re: Re: Proposal/design feedback needed: WITHIN GROUP (sql standard ordered set aggregate functions)

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>
Cc: Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk>, PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Re: Proposal/design feedback needed: WITHIN GROUP (sql standard ordered set aggregate functions)
Date: 2013-07-19 02:09:48
Message-ID: 2184.1374199788@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> writes:
> (I don't know whether VARIADIC transition functions work today, but that would
> become an orthogonal project.)

Coincidentally enough, some Salesforce folk were asking me about allowing
VARIADIC aggregates just a few days ago. I experimented enough to find
out that if you make an array-accepting transition function, and then
force the aggregate's pg_proc entry to look like it's variadic (by
manually setting provariadic and some other fields), then everything
seems to Just Work: the parser and executor are both fine with it.
So I think all that's needed here is to add some syntax support to
CREATE AGGREGATE, and probably make some tweaks in pg_dump. I was
planning to go work on that sometime soon.

Having said that, though, what Andrew seemed to want was VARIADIC ANY,
which is a *completely* different kettle of fish, since the actual
parameters can't be converted to an array. I'm not sure if that's
as easy to support.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Prabakaran, Vaishnavi 2013-07-19 02:21:40 Re: Differences in WHERE clause of SELECT
Previous Message Stephen Frost 2013-07-19 01:45:56 Re: Performance Improvement by reducing WAL for Update Operation