Re: Allow a prosupport function to be attached to an aggregate

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Andrei Lepikhov <lepihov(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Corey Huinker <corey(dot)huinker(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Allow a prosupport function to be attached to an aggregate
Date: 2026-08-23 16:55:32
Message-ID: 228670.1787504132@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Andrei Lepikhov <lepihov(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On 21/08/2026 17:20, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I'm certainly not going to risk putting in half-considered
>> support for such a thing at this stage of the release cycle.
>> There's enough risk in adding what I proposed yesterday.

> No objection. It closes the case the thread started from and the pg_dump part is
> what v0 was missing.

OK, pushed v3 then.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Previous Message Andrey Borodin 2026-08-23 16:28:47 Re: [PATCH] Fix vacuum_delay_point happening inside lock