Re: range_agg

From: Paul A Jungwirth <pj(at)illuminatedcomputing(dot)com>
To: Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>
Cc: Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: range_agg
Date: 2019-07-05 17:38:26
Message-ID: CA+renyXWi9ON5ycgBYMxgt_zQmdUvhxHewvV-+TDdM4L2c36rw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 3:38 PM Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> wrote:
>
> The patch is implicitly introducing the concept of
> a "multirange" (in this case, an array of ranges),

I meant to say before: this patch always returns a sorted array, and I
think a multirange should always act as if sorted when we stringify it
or cast it to an array. If you disagree let me know. :-)

You could imagine that when returning arrays we rely on the caller to
do the sorting (range_agg(r ORDER BY r)) and otherwise give wrong
results. But hopefully everyone agrees that would not be nice. :-) So
even the array-returning version should always return a sorted array I
think. (I'm not sure anything else is really coherent or at least easy
to describe.)

Paul

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message David Fetter 2019-07-05 17:45:32 Re: range_agg
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2019-07-05 17:36:39 Re: mcvstats serialization code is still shy of a load