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
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 |