Re: [HACKERS] PoC: Grouped base relation
От | Robert Haas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] PoC: Grouped base relation |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CA+TgmoYedhCq71yRzC66=tez1p-H=x0U0GQqKL91bwhTx_WRag@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] PoC: Grouped base relation (Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 2:19 AM, Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> Not all aggregates have TransValue * integer = newTransValue >> behaviour. Example is array_agg() or string_agg() has "TransValue >> concatenated integer time" behaviour. Or an aggregate "multiplying" >> values across rows will have TransValue (raised to) integer behaviour. >> Labelling all of those as "multi" doesn't look good. > > All aggregates that have (or can have) a combine function have it, because > in the worst case you can simply implement it by calling the combine > function repeatedly. +1. > Also, if you treat the combine function as "+" then the "multiply" function > is exactly what "*" is expected to do. So I find the naming quite > appropriate, actually. +1. > But I think naming of the function is not the most important aspect of the > patch, I believe. In the worst case, we can do s/multi/whatever/ sometime > later. Yeah. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: