| From: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Chapman Flack <chap(at)anastigmatix(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Vik Fearing <vik(at)postgresfriends(dot)org>, Vlad Bokov <vlad(at)razum2um(dot)me>, "pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: CREATE AGGREGATE array_cat |
| Date: | 2020-11-19 00:57:29 |
| Message-ID: | CAKFQuwby_Sk9-4ngKZVKeXRJqtbPdFuExUEn0N-E3Xkeq6ttiw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 5:54 PM Chapman Flack <chap(at)anastigmatix(dot)net> wrote:
> On 11/18/20 19:46, David G. Johnston wrote:
>
> > I doubt there is any substantial resistance to including such a function
> > but it would have to be written in C.
>
> Would anything have to be written at all, save the CREATE AGGREGATE
> suggested in the original message, using the existing array_cat as the
> state transition function?
>
> I suppose one might add an optimization to the existing array_cat to
> detect the aggregate case, and realize it could clobber its left argument.
> (But I'm not sure how much that would save, with arrays.)
>
>
Outside my particular area of involvement really; it may be sufficient.
David J.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Vik Fearing | 2020-11-19 00:59:31 | Re: CREATE AGGREGATE array_cat |
| Previous Message | Chapman Flack | 2020-11-19 00:54:52 | Re: CREATE AGGREGATE array_cat |