From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Getting rid of aggregate_dummy() |
Date: | 2020-11-04 16:32:56 |
Message-ID: | 1187259.1604507576@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
I wrote:
> Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> writes:
>> On 01/11/2020 22:47, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> With that, we don't actually need aggregate_dummy() to exist at
>>> all, because it's never referenced. Having "aggregate_dummy"
>>> as the prosrc value for an aggregate function is now just a
>>> random convention; any other string would do as well. (We could
>>> save a few bytes in pg_proc by choosing a shorter string, but
>>> probably it's better to stick to the existing convention.)
>> NULL would seem like the natural value for that.
> I wouldn't be in favor of that unless we changed the prolang value
> as well. Which could certainly be considered, but it makes the
> patch rather more invasive, and I'm not sure it's worth it.
Looking closer, I see that pg_proc.prosrc is marked NOT NULL,
so this couldn't work anyway unless we wish to remove that marking.
Which doesn't seem particularly wise. I pushed this without any
change in the catalog contents.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Banck | 2020-11-04 16:41:39 | Re: Online verification of checksums |
Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2020-11-04 16:02:14 | Re: automatic analyze: readahead - add "IO read time" log message |