Re: Rethinking representation of partial-aggregate steps

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Rethinking representation of partial-aggregate steps
Date: 2016-06-27 15:00:28
Message-ID: 429.1467039628@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> I can't help wonder how plan to allow future expansions of
> non-serialized partial aggregates giving that in setrefs.c you're
> making a hard assumption that mark_partial_aggref() should always
> receive the SERIAL versions of the aggsplit.

What I was imagining, but didn't bother to implement immediately, is
that we could pass down the appropriate AggSplit value from the plan
node (using the context argument for the mutator function). planner.c
likewise needs a bit more plumbing to generate such plan nodes in the
first place, so I didn't feel that setrefs.c had to be smarter right now.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2016-06-27 15:03:39 Re: Parallelized polymorphic aggs, and aggtype vs aggoutputtype
Previous Message Tom Lane 2016-06-27 14:13:47 Broken handling of lwlocknames.h