Re: Compatible defaults for LEAD/LAG

From: Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>, Vik Fearing <vik(at)postgresfriends(dot)org>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Compatible defaults for LEAD/LAG
Date: 2020-11-04 22:00:17
Message-ID: CAFj8pRC35Zt5v9EqLxoq1bbLjMTWBTGys2zpd5E+G0s7bG_M3w@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

st 4. 11. 2020 v 22:12 odesílatel Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> napsal:

> Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > út 22. 9. 2020 v 2:33 odesílatel Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> napsal:
> >> Anyway, attached find
> >> 0001 - updates Vik's original patch to HEAD and tweaks the
> >> grammar in the docs a bit.
> >> 0002 - add-on patch to convert array_append, array_prepend,
> >> array_cat, array_position, array_positions, array_remove,
> >> array_replace, and width_bucket to use anycompatiblearray.
> >> I think 0001 is committable, but 0002 is just WIP since
> >> I didn't touch the docs. I'm slightly discouraged about
> >> whether 0002 is worth proceeding with. Any thoughts?
>
> > I think so 0002 has sense - more than doc I miss related regress tests,
> but
> > it is partially covered by anycompatible tests
>
> I didn't see any need for particularly exhaustive testing, but
> I did add one new test for an operator and one for a function.
> Pushed with that and the necessary docs work.
>

ok, Thank you

Pavel

>
> regards, tom lane
>

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tomas Vondra 2020-11-04 22:13:41 Re: Use of "long" in incremental sort code
Previous Message David Rowley 2020-11-04 21:58:44 Re: Use of "long" in incremental sort code