Re: BUG #7831: user defined-aggregated don't set initcond to null when unspecified, instead uses its first argument

From: Abel Abraham Camarillo Ojeda <acamari(at)verlet(dot)org>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Pg Bugs <pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: BUG #7831: user defined-aggregated don't set initcond to null when unspecified, instead uses its first argument
Date: 2013-01-28 05:10:49
Message-ID: CAPD=2NjKTZHD2tvkT6k5bTk2MPsFkwJA0SKF4gj41o2XBeoxdA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs

On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 10:53 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> acamari(at)verlet(dot)org writes:
>> user defined-aggregated don't set initcond to null when unspecified, instead
>> uses its first argument.
>
> And your point is?
>
> AFAICS this is the documented behavior when the transition function
> is strict. See
> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.1/static/sql-createaggregate.html
> 6th paragraph under "Description".
>
> regards, tom lane

Oh sorry...

I think that I didn't read that reference enough times, I was mistaken.

Thank you, sorry for the noise...

In response to

Browse pgsql-bugs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Magnus Hagander 2013-01-28 09:45:10 Re: Review of "pg_basebackup and pg_receivexlog to use non-blocking socket communication", was: Re: Re: [BUGS] BUG #7534: walreceiver takes long time to detect n/w breakdown
Previous Message Tom Lane 2013-01-28 04:53:15 Re: BUG #7831: user defined-aggregated don't set initcond to null when unspecified, instead uses its first argument