Re: Variadic aggregates vs. project policy
От | Pavel Stehule |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Variadic aggregates vs. project policy |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAFj8pRCXJo79usnVGgu3WEjNqSVVX6fSg31qXyqAkgPNg_JZcQ@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Variadic aggregates vs. project policy (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
2013/8/29 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
>> So the question I'm now wondering about is whether this considerationThat might not be the ugliest syntax the SQL committee ever invented, but
>> makes variadic aggregates a bad idea all around, even if we don't have
>> any built-in ones. Is the risk of user confusion (in the use of their
>> own aggregate) sufficient reason to reject such a feature?
> can be this issue solved by syntax?
> In September commitfest is patch for "WITHIN GROUP" where ORDER BY clause
> is safety separated from parameters.
it's right up there. I don't want to go that way, especially not when the
existing precedent for the same feature with regular functions doesn't use
any weird special syntax.
It is maybe not nice, but it is long years supported by almost all SQL servers.
When I talked with Atri, he mentioned, so variadic aggregates are supported there too.
Regards
Pavel
Pavel
On further reflection, what the "policy" was actually about was not that
we should forbid users from creating potentially-confusing aggregates
themselves, but only that we'd avoid having any *built in* aggregates with
this hazard. So maybe I'm overthinking this, and the correct reading is
just that we should have a policy against built-in variadic aggregates.
can be this potentially strange situation identified? - and some warning can be raised.
regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: