| From: | Andreas Karlsson <andreas(at)proxel(dot)se> |
|---|---|
| To: | David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>, "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Marcos Pegoraro <marcos(at)f10(dot)com(dot)br>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Partial Mode in Aggregate Functions |
| Date: | 2026-02-27 08:49:13 |
| Message-ID: | ff016564-b5c6-461a-9df3-a03eacf37753@proxel.se |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2/27/26 5:34 AM, David Rowley wrote:
> I'll stand by what I said earlier, that if people don't know what
> partial aggregation is that we should aim to better explain what it
> is. Renaming it won't magically inform people what it is and will
> likely just confuse all the people who already know what it is. I
> think you're about 10 years too late to bikeshed names for this.
+1
There is nothing wrong with calling them partial aggregates. No name is
likely to never confuse anyone and I do not see any big issue with
partial in particular. Both parallel and batch, as suggested in this
thread, would be worse.
--
Andreas Karlsson
Percona
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alexandre Felipe | 2026-02-27 08:51:19 | Re: index prefetching |
| Previous Message | zhanghu | 2026-02-27 08:46:12 | Re: guc: make dereference style consistent in check_backtrace_functions |