| From: | Gokulakannan Somasundaram <gokul007(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers list <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Bug in 9.0Alpha4 |
| Date: | 2010-03-17 08:30:12 |
| Message-ID: | 9362e74e1003170130u2fd0c745wa0db07b04da362f7@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>
>
> When we were doing the ordered-aggregates patch, I considered passing
> all those values as explicit parameters to transformAggregateCall,
> and having it build the Aggref node from scratch and return it.
> However having seven or eight parameters to transformAggregateCall
> (and more in future if we ever add more features here) didn't really
> seem to be better style than abusing Aggref a bit. But maybe it is
> the best way after all. Thoughts?
>
>
I feel it would be good, if we send the parameters explicitly and if that
increases, put it inside another structure(data carriage structure) and send
it.. But please take my suggestion as a novice one. :))
Thanks,
Gokul.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pavel Golub | 2010-03-17 09:06:26 | PQftype implementation |
| Previous Message | Takahiro Itagaki | 2010-03-17 08:13:50 | Re: Partitioning syntax |