Re: Patch: propose to include 3 new functions into intarray and intagg
От | Markus Wanner |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Patch: propose to include 3 new functions into intarray and intagg |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 48C11744.2010103@bluegap.ch обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Patch: propose to include 3 new functions into intarray and intagg (Gregory Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Patch: propose to include 3 new functions into intarray and intagg
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Hi, Gregory Stark wrote: > Regarding the patch listed on the commitfest "3 new functions into intarray > and intagg" (which I just noticed has a reviewer listed -- doh): ..well, just add your name as well, no? > I definitely like the int_array_append_aggregate function but I don't see > anything int[] specific about it. We should be able to have a generic > array_union() aggregate which uses the same IsA(fcinfo->context, AggState) > trick to scribble on its state variable. It don't even see any reason it > couldn't work for arrays of varlenas, though it would take a bit of > restructuring. Yeah, the same idea was bugging me. Doesn't such code already exist? > So I would be definitely for a adding this to core if it were rewritten to > work with generic arrays which, unless there are problems I'm not seeing, I > don't think would be very hard. > > As far as detailed code commentary the only thing which jumps out at me is > that it's using MemoryContextAlloc to grow the array instead of repalloc which > seems like a waste. This isn't a new thing though, it was how intagg was > written and this patch just didn't change it. Oh, good catch. > I'm not against putting more functions into intagg and intarray and bidx and > the grouping/counting thing seem like they might be useful functionality. but > I have a feeling others might feel differently. The naming 'bidx' seems a bit weired to me, but otherwise I'm also optimistic about it. Regards Markus Wanner
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: