Re: RFC: Restructuring pg_aggregate

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: RFC: Restructuring pg_aggregate
Date: 2002-04-07 01:58:55
Message-ID: 28143.1018144735@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> Tom Lane writes:
>> Why shouldn't aggregate functions have entries in pg_proc?

> Furthermore, we could make the new function privileges apply to aggregates
> as well.

Good point. Another thing that would fall out for free is that the
aggregate type-coercion rules would become exactly like the function
type-coercion rules; right now they are a tad stupider.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2002-04-07 01:59:16 Re: timeout implementation issues
Previous Message Tom Lane 2002-04-07 01:40:14 Re: timeout implementation issues