From: | Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Atri Sharma <atri(dot)jiit(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Vik Fearing <vik(dot)fearing(at)dalibo(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: WITHIN GROUP patch |
Date: | 2013-12-06 19:32:16 |
Message-ID: | 87mwkdg4nv.fsf@news-spur.riddles.org.uk |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>>>>> "Tom" == Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
Tom> Regardless of that, though ... what is the reasoning for
Tom> inventing pg_get_aggregate_arguments() rather than just making
Tom> pg_get_function_arguments() do the right thing?
pg_get_function_arguments()'s interface assumes that the caller is
providing the enclosing parens. Changing it would have meant returning
a result like 'float8) WITHIN GROUP (float8' which I reckoned would
have too much chance of breaking existing callers.
--
Andrew (irc:RhodiumToad)
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2013-12-06 20:14:52 | Re: WITHIN GROUP patch |
Previous Message | Fujii Masao | 2013-12-06 19:02:55 | Re: pg_stat_statements: calls under-estimation propagation |