Re: ON EMPTY clause for aggregate and window functions

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Vik Fearing <vik(at)postgresfriends(dot)org>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jeevan Chalke <jeevan(dot)chalke(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Isaac Morland <isaac(dot)morland(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: ON EMPTY clause for aggregate and window functions
Date: 2026-09-17 15:55:02
Message-ID: 645015.1789660502@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Vik Fearing <vik(at)postgresfriends(dot)org> writes:
> On 17/09/2026 15:31, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I'd be totally fine with rejecting this as a frammish we do
>> not care to support.

> I am not the most unbiased person, but I would like us to implement it.
> If for nothing else, then for helping people convert from database
> implementations that do have it.

It's not zero cost. Robert already mentioned the
development/maintenance effort involved, and it also bloats the Bison
grammar rules, creating some incremental penalty on parsing speed.
Admittedly these costs aren't large, but neither is the benefit
of supporting it.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Palak Chaturvedi 2026-09-17 16:02:23 Re: Changing shared_buffers without restart
Previous Message Robert Haas 2026-09-17 15:55:01 Re: issues with eager aggregation