David Rowley <dgrowle...@gmail.com> writes:
> As for the slight misuse of group_pathkeys, I guess since there are no
> users that require just the plain pathkeys belonging to the GROUP BY,
> then likely the best thing would be just to rename that field to
> something like groupagg_pathkeys. Maintaining two separate fields and
> concatenating them every time we want group_pathkeys does not seem
> that appealing to me. Seems like a waste of memory and effort. I don't
> want to hi-jack this thread to discuss that, but if you have a
> preferred course of action, then I'm happy to kick off a discussion on
> a new thread.
I don't feel any great urgency to resolve this. Let's wait and see
what comes out of the other thread.
regards, tom lane
