Re: new aggregate functions v3

Dear Neil,

> As I understand it, there's an ambiguity issue with SOME/ANY, but not
> with EVERY. If so, can we implement EVERY per-spec at least? It's okay
> if we just add EVERY as an alias for BOOL_AND for the sake of homogeneity.

Ok.

> > + /* EVERY aggregate implementation conforming to SQL 2003 standard.
> > + * must be strict.
> > + */
>
> This comment is misleading if we don't actually provide an
> implementation of EVERY that conforms to spec. There's a similar comment
> WRT to SOME/ANY.

I agree it is somehow misleading. I'll clarify.

> > + PG_FUNCTION_INFO_V1(booland_statefunc);
> Not needed for builtin functions (they are assumed to be V1).

Ok, I'll drop that.

> > + /* what about every? */
> > + DATA(insert OID = 2517 ( bool_and PGNSP PGUID 12 t f f f i 1 16 "16" _null_ aggregate_dummy - _null_ ));
> > + DESCR("boolean-and aggregate");
> > + /* what about any/some? */
>
> Seems these questions should be removed, no?

Well, the question really means "what about naming it every", that is
you're very question above!

I'll do a fix wrt to your comments, and send a 4th version.

Thanks for your comments.

--
Fabien Coelho - coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr