| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jim(at)nasby(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Jeremy Drake <pgsql(at)jdrake(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: width_bucket function for timestamps |
| Date: | 2006-10-09 19:49:50 |
| Message-ID: | 6026.1160423390@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Jim C. Nasby" <jim(at)nasby(dot)net> writes:
> On Mon, Oct 09, 2006 at 01:49:37PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> This is exactly the slippery slope I don't care to start down.
> I guess I'm confused as to how this is any different from other
> functions where we've provided multiple input arguments, such as the
> aggregate functions.
The salient reason is that the spec only defines width_bucket for numeric
input arguments, whereas stuff like max/min is defined *by the spec* for
other data types.
Since there's no spec-based argument for allowing width_bucket for other
datatypes, and only an (IMHO) very weak use-case for it, I don't think
we should add the clutter.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Mark Wong | 2006-10-09 19:52:33 | Re: continuing daily testing of dbt2 against postgresql |
| Previous Message | Luke Lonergan | 2006-10-09 19:49:12 | Re: continuing daily testing of dbt2 against |