From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: taking a stab at agg(foo ORDER BY bar) |
Date: | 2009-10-04 15:10:10 |
Message-ID: | 8950.1254669010@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk> writes:
> This doesn't seem to present any problems as far as the syntax goes,
> and the actual execution is just a small matter of coding, but I'm not
> seeing the best way to handle it in parse-analysis. All the existing
> infrastructure for ORDER BY seems to be dependent on targetlists, which
> obviously we don't have in the context of an aggregate call.
Well, if you don't want to refactor that code, it wouldn't be difficult
to make a one-entry tlist containing the aggregate argument, and then
throw it away again after you'd extracted what you need.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-10-04 15:47:19 | Re: Using results from INSERT ... RETURNING |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2009-10-04 14:48:16 | Re: Getting the red out (of the buildfarm) |