| From: | Maciek Sakrejda <m(dot)sakrejda(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Vik Fearing <vik(at)postgresfriends(dot)org> |
| Cc: | David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: ANY_VALUE aggregate |
| Date: | 2023-02-15 06:30:11 |
| Message-ID: | CAOtHd0DbJnXXQxnnFHN9ZxcNHEeWC0Vph6nY-Hrj1ZHdpLMyPQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
I could have used such an aggregate in the past, so +1.
This is maybe getting into nit-picking, but perhaps it should be
documented as returning an "arbitrary" value instead of a
"non-deterministic" one? Technically the value is deterministic:
there's a concrete algorithm specifying how it's selected. However,
the algorithm is reserved as an implementation detail, since the
function is designed for cases in which the caller should not care
which value is returned.
Thanks,
Maciek
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Maciek Sakrejda | 2023-02-15 06:35:01 | Re: pg_stat_bgwriter.buffers_backend is pretty meaningless (and more?) |
| Previous Message | Kyotaro Horiguchi | 2023-02-15 06:20:59 | Re: Exit walsender before confirming remote flush in logical replication |