Re: [PATCH] Negative Transition Aggregate Functions (WIP)

On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 6:37 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:

> Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > I think we really need a larger consensus on this though, so I'd be
> > interested to hear what others think.
>
> My advice is to lose the EXPLAIN output entirely. If the authors of
> the patch can't agree on what it means, what hope have everyday users
> got of making sense of it?
>
>
Hi All,

I'd just like to thank Florian and Dean for all the hard work that has gone
on while I've been away.
I've been reading the thread but I've not had much time to respond to
messages and I've lost touch a bit with the progress of the code.

It looks like Florian has addressed everything that Dean pointed out in his
detailed review, apart from the explain output.
I've thought about this and I think it would be a shame if the patch got
delayed for something so trivial. I thought the stats were quite useful as
for things like restarts on SUM(numeric) it could be quite difficult to
tell how many restarts there were otherwise. Since I have no extra ideas
about what might be more useful then I've just pulled it out of the patch
and I propose that we continue without it until someone comes up with an
idea that everyone can agree on.

I've attached an updated invtrans_strictstrict_base patch which has the
feature removed.

Regards

David Rowley

> regards, tom lane
>