| From: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, "Patches (PostgreSQL)" <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: array support patch phase 1 patch |
| Date: | 2003-06-04 22:49:17 |
| Message-ID: | 3EDE776D.2080109@joeconway.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-patches |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> writes:
>
>>The aggregates hacking was a bit convoluted by the desire to support
>>polymorphic aggregates using polymorphic functions. You end up with many
>>possible states, some of which are invalid because they don't provide
>>enough context to resolve the polymorphic types. Any suggestions?
>
> I think we'd be better off leaving that out till we understand it a
> little better, then ...
I'm reasonably sure I covered the bases on it. Did you find behavior you
didn't like?
In any case, I think we ought to allow polymorphic functions to be used
in aggregates. Life is simpler if the aggregate uses well defined data
types.
Joe
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Rod Taylor | 2003-06-04 23:53:51 | Re: pgstattuple for schemas |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-06-04 22:44:41 | Re: array support patch phase 1 patch |