| From: | Petr Jelinek <petr(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, Andreas Karlsson <andreas(at)proxel(dot)se> |
| Cc: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>, David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Using 128-bit integers for sum, avg and statistics aggregates |
| Date: | 2015-03-09 17:57:28 |
| Message-ID: | 54FDDF08.9030602@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 09/03/15 18:39, David Fetter wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 09, 2015 at 01:39:04PM +0100, Andreas Karlsson wrote:
>> On 03/07/2015 07:18 PM, Petr Jelinek wrote:
>>
>>> What I am wondering is if those numeric_int16_* functions that also deal
>>> with either the Int128AggState or NumericAggState should be renamed in
>>> similar fashion.
>>
>> You mean something like numeric_poly_sum instead of numeric_int16_sum? I
>> personally am not fond of either name. While numeric_int16_* incorrectly
>> implies we have a int16 SQL type numeric_poly_* does not tell us that this
>> is an optimized version which uses a smaller state.
>
> Would it be simpler to write a separate patch to add an int16 SQL type
> so that this implication is correct?
>
No, because then you'd need to emulate the type on platforms where it
does not exist and the patch would be several times more complex for no
useful reason.
--
Petr Jelinek http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Gierth | 2015-03-09 18:02:18 | Re: Final Patch for GROUPING SETS |
| Previous Message | Michael Meskes | 2015-03-09 17:50:18 | Re: Object files generated by ecpg test suite not ignored on Windows |