| From: | Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: GROUPING |
| Date: | 2015-05-21 16:25:56 |
| Message-ID: | 87617lzyqi.fsf@news-spur.riddles.org.uk |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>>>>> "Andres" == Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
Andres> I'd vote for either 0) do nothing or 1). I think the use case
Andres> for specifying 64+ (or even 32+) columns in grouping is pretty
Andres> darn slim. And as you said, it's not that hard to work around
Andres> it if you need it, and that's only going to be in an automated
Andres> fashion anyway.
If the vote goes with (1), this patch ought to suffice:
--
Andrew (irc:RhodiumToad)
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| grouping-bigint.patch | text/x-patch | 2.5 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jan Bilek | 2015-05-21 16:30:48 | Re: Postgres and TLSv1.2 |
| Previous Message | Dean Rasheed | 2015-05-21 16:24:31 | Re: GROUPING |