| From: | Florian Pflug <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Negative Transition Aggregate Functions (WIP) |
| Date: | 2014-04-09 01:58:18 |
| Message-ID: | 2AD0352F-55BE-474A-8C9F-EB56D848BA3D@phlo.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Apr9, 2014, at 02:55 , David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 8:48 AM, Florian Pflug <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org> wrote:
>
> As explain above, invtrans_bool is a bit problematic, since it carries
> a real risk of performance regressions. It's included for completeness'
> sake, and should probably not be committed at this time.
>
> Did you mean to write invtrans_minmax? Otherwise you didn't explain about
> you concerns with bool.
Grmpf. Should have re-read that once more before sending :-(
Yes, I meant invtrans_minmax is problematic! invtrans_bool is fine, the
inverse transition function never fails for BOOL_AND and BOOL_OR. This
is why I factored it out into a separate patch, to make it easy to not
apply the MIN/MAX stuff, while still applying the BOOL stuff. Sorry for
the confision.
best regards,
Florian Pflug
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Craig Ringer | 2014-04-09 02:03:50 | Re: Pending 9.4 patches |
| Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2014-04-09 01:28:19 | Re: Pending 9.4 patches |