| From: | Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Atri Sharma <atri(dot)jiit(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Vik Fearing <vik(dot)fearing(at)dalibo(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: WITHIN GROUP patch |
| Date: | 2014-01-08 00:16:27 |
| Message-ID: | 87wqibxs01.fsf@news-spur.riddles.org.uk |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>>>>> "Tom" == Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>> Furthermore, I can't help noticing that the increased complexity
>> has now pretty much negated your original arguments for moving so
>> much of the work out of nodeAgg.c.
Tom> The key reason for that was, and remains, not having the
Tom> behavior hard-wired in nodeAgg; I believe that this design
Tom> permits things to be accomplished in aggregate implementation
Tom> functions that would not have been possible with the original
Tom> patch. I'm willing to accept some code growth to have that
Tom> flexibility.
Do you have an actual use case?
--
Andrew (irc:RhodiumToad)
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Matheus de Oliveira | 2014-01-08 00:42:59 | Re: Bug in visibility map WAL-logging |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2014-01-07 23:39:35 | Re: Bug in visibility map WAL-logging |