| From: | Paul A Jungwirth <pj(at)illuminatedcomputing(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: range_agg |
| Date: | 2019-06-16 22:59:29 |
| Message-ID: | CA+renyV+ER5HXjFmw=JnOfX_ZeMWjECA9VPjCQ+fF23QFVTYGA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, May 8, 2019 at 9:54 PM Paul A Jungwirth
<pj(at)illuminatedcomputing(dot)com> wrote:
> Here is an initial patch. I'd love to have some feedback! :-)
Here is a v2 rebased off current master. No substantive changes, but
it does fix one trivial git conflict.
After talking with David in Ottawa and hearing a good use-case from
one other person for his proposed weighted_range_agg and
covering_range_agg, I think *will* add those to this patch, but if
anyone wants to offer feedback on my approach so far, I'd appreciate
that too.
Yours,
Paul
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| range_agg_v0002.patch | application/octet-stream | 49.2 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2019-06-17 00:02:21 | Re: pgsql: Avoid spurious deadlocks when upgrading a tuple lock |
| Previous Message | Gavin Flower | 2019-06-16 22:56:41 | Re: [PATCH] Stop ALTER SYSTEM from making bad assumptions |