Re: Combining Aggregates

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Kouhei Kaigai <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Combining Aggregates
Date: 2016-03-24 17:17:06
Message-ID: CA+TgmoaeXCyrR_y1_9RSKhc4TZ8Tg3b4Q0A341rLK69bx+3jxg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 2:18 PM, David Rowley
<david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> I've attached 2 of the patches which are affected by the changes.

I think the documentation for 0001 needs some work yet. The
additional paragraph that you've added...

(1) doesn't seem to appear at a very logical place in the
documentation - I think it should be much further down, as it's a
minor detail. Maybe document this the same way as the documentation
patch you just sent for the combine-function stuff does it; and

(2) isn't indented consistently with the surrounding paragraphs; and

(3) is missing a closing </para> tag

Also, I'd just cut this:

+ This is required due to
+ the process model being unable to pass references to <literal>INTERNAL
+ </literal> types between different <productname>PostgreSQL</productname>
+ processes.

Instead, I'd change the earlier sentence in the paragraph, which
currently reads:

+ These
+ functions are required in order to allow parallel aggregation for aggregates
+ with an <replaceable class="PARAMETER">stype</replaceable> of <literal>
+ INTERNAL</>.

I'd replace the period at end with a comma and add "since
<literal>INTERNAL</> values represent arbitrary in-memory data
structures which can't be passed between processes". I think that's a
bit smoother.

I'm going to read through the code again now.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Abhijit Menon-Sen 2016-03-24 17:18:51 Re: dealing with extension dependencies that aren't quite 'e'
Previous Message Tomas Vondra 2016-03-24 17:12:58 Re: multivariate statistics v14