From: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "P O'Toole" <P(dot)OToole(at)uwyo(dot)edu> |
Cc: | "pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Weird return-value from pg_get_function_identity_arguments() on certain aggregate functions? |
Date: | 2018-03-12 22:00:07 |
Message-ID: | CAKFQuwbMKiqHK7ac6iiwY8bfza_C80b8-WXfJ3r8ii5wVX3U2A@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 2:47 PM, David G. Johnston <
david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 2:19 PM, P O'Toole <P(dot)OToole(at)uwyo(dot)edu> wrote:
>
>>
>> According to the System Information Functions docs,
>> pg_get_function_identity_arguments(OID) should simply "get argument list
>> to identify a function (without default values)", but one example of how it
>> behaves strangely is that:
>>
>>
>>
>> SELECT pg_get_function_identity_arguments('pg_catalog.percentile_disc(DOUBLE
>> PRECISION[], ANYELEMENT)'::REGPROCEDURE)
>>
>>
>>
> FWIW a simple \dfS percentile* will elicit the same description.
>
> I suppose it depends on what you are using the output for - the
> (percentile*) functions that are decorated with ORDER BY are exclusively
> aggregate, as opposed to standard, functions.
>
>
In this case I'd say the supposed bug is that GRANT ON FUNCTION doesn't
accept the signature of a valid CREATE AGGREGATE even though our existing
implementation uses it as an implementation mechanism for both (i.e., we
don't have a separate GRANT ON AGGREGATE).
David J.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2018-03-12 22:22:13 | Re: Weird return-value from pg_get_function_identity_arguments() on certain aggregate functions? |
Previous Message | David G. Johnston | 2018-03-12 21:47:47 | Re: Weird return-value from pg_get_function_identity_arguments() on certain aggregate functions? |