| From: | Marko Tiikkaja <marko(at)joh(dot)to> |
|---|---|
| To: | Corey Huinker <corey(dot)huinker(at)gmail(dot)com>, Paul A Jungwirth <pj(at)illuminatedcomputing(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, sudalai <sudalait2(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: First Aggregate Funtion? |
| Date: | 2015-07-20 16:07:00 |
| Message-ID: | 55AD1CA4.5040002@joh.to |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 7/20/15 6:02 PM, Corey Huinker wrote:
> By using only(a.name_of_the_thing) we'd have a bit more clarity that the
> author expected all of those values to be the same across the aggregate
> window, and discovering otherwise was reason enough to fail the query.
>
> *IF* we're considering adding these to core, I think that only() would be
> just a slight modification of the last() implementation, and could be done
> at the same time.
>
> [1] I don't care what it gets named. I just want the functionality.
A big +1 from me. In fact, I wrote a patch implementing this for 9.5
but never got around to finishing it.
.m
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2015-07-20 16:11:24 | Re: All-zero page in GIN index causes assertion failure |
| Previous Message | Corey Huinker | 2015-07-20 16:02:34 | Re: First Aggregate Funtion? |