| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> |
| Cc: | David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Sharing aggregate states between different aggregate functions |
| Date: | 2015-07-28 17:37:07 |
| Message-ID: | 16503.1438105027@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> writes:
> On 07/28/2015 07:18 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> writes:
>>> BTW, we're also not checking if the transition or final functions are
>>> volatile. But that was the same before this patch too.
>> Up to now it hasn't mattered.
> Yes, it has. We combine identical aggregates even without this patch.
Ah, right, how'd I forget about that?
> No-one's complained so far, and I can't think of a use case for a
> volatile transition or final function, so maybe it's not worth worrying
> about. Then again, checking for the volatility of those functions would
> be easy too.
Given the lack of complaints, I tend to agree that it's not the province
of this patch to make a change in that policy.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2015-07-28 18:01:18 | Shouldn't we document "don't use a mountpoint as $PGDATA"? |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2015-07-28 17:19:30 | pgsql: Improve logging of TAP tests. |