From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Vik Fearing <vik(at)postgresfriends(dot)org>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: ANY_VALUE aggregate |
Date: | 2023-01-18 15:06:02 |
Message-ID: | 464ece4e-fabb-ddac-60da-897493c4476d@enterprisedb.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 05.12.22 21:18, Vik Fearing wrote:
> On 12/5/22 15:57, Vik Fearing wrote:
>> The SQL:2023 Standard defines a new aggregate named ANY_VALUE. It
>> returns an implementation-dependent (i.e. non-deterministic) value
>> from the rows in its group.
>>
>> PFA an implementation of this aggregate.
>
> Here is v2 of this patch. I had forgotten to update sql_features.txt.
In your patch, the documentation says the definition is any_value("any")
but the catalog definitions are any_value(anyelement). Please sort that
out.
Since the transition function is declared strict, null values don't need
to be checked. I think the whole function could be reduced to
Datum
any_value_trans(PG_FUNCTION_ARGS)
{
PG_RETURN_DATUM(PG_GETARG_DATUM(0));
}
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David G. Johnston | 2023-01-18 15:07:33 | Re: [DOCS] Stats views and functions not in order? |
Previous Message | Tomas Vondra | 2023-01-18 14:00:34 | Re: Add LZ4 compression in pg_dump |