Re: Aggregate function API versus grouping sets

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Atri Sharma <atri(dot)jiit(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Aggregate function API versus grouping sets
Date: 2014-07-02 20:03:25
Message-ID: 21474.1404331405@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk> writes:
> "Tom" == Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Tom> If we're going to do that, I think it needs to be in 9.4. Are
> Tom> you going to work up a patch?

> Do we want a decision on the fn_extra matter first, or shall I do one
> patch for the econtext, and a following one for fn_extra?

I think they're somewhat independent, and probably best patched
separately. In any case orderedsetagg.c's use of fn_extra is a local
matter that we'd not really have to fix in 9.4, except to the extent
that you think third-party code might copy it.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrew Gierth 2014-07-02 20:15:58 Re: Aggregate function API versus grouping sets
Previous Message Tom Lane 2014-07-02 20:01:27 Re: Audit of logout