| From: | Marko Tiikkaja <marko(at)joh(dot)to> |
|---|---|
| To: | Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: onlyvalue aggregate (was: First Aggregate Funtion?) |
| Date: | 2015-11-02 11:52:13 |
| Message-ID: | 56374E6D.5070807@joh.to |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 11/2/15 12:40 PM, Dean Rasheed wrote:
> I'm not sure what you mean when you say accepting NULLs can hide bugs.
> I think that if the input values to the aggregate were
> 1,1,1,NULL,1,1,1 then it should raise an error. ITSM that that is more
> likely to reveal problems with your underlying data or the query. If
> you want to ignore NULLs, you can always add a FILTER(WHERE val IS NOT
> NULL) clause.
Ah, I see. So you're arguing that the aggregate should accept NULLs as
input, but consider them distinct from any non-NULL values. I thought
you meant accepting NULLs and *not* considering them distinct, which
could easily hide problems.
In that case, I don't oppose to changing the behavior. I'll make the
necessary changes.
.m
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Konstantin Knizhnik | 2015-11-02 12:12:21 | Re: eXtensible Transaction Manager API |
| Previous Message | Dean Rasheed | 2015-11-02 11:40:39 | Re: onlyvalue aggregate (was: First Aggregate Funtion?) |