Sent from my iPad
> On 24-Dec-2013, at 2:50, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > Atri Sharma <atri.j...@gmail.com> writes: >> Please find attached the latest patch for WITHIN GROUP. This patch is >> after fixing the merge conflicts. > > I've committed this after significant editorialization --- most notably, > I pushed control of the sort step into the aggregate support functions. > I didn't like the way nodeAgg.c had been hacked up to do it the other way. > There's a couple hundred lines of code handling that in orderedsetaggs.c, > which is more or less comparable to the amount of code that didn't get > added to nodeAgg.c, so I think the argument that the original approach > avoided code bloat is bogus. > > The main reason I pushed all the new aggregates into a single file > (orderedsetaggs.c) was so they could share a private typedef for the > transition state value. It's possible that we should expose that > struct so that third-party aggregate functions could leverage the > existing transition-function infrastructure instead of having to > copy-and-paste it. I wasn't sure where to put it though --- maybe > a new include file would be needed. Anyway I left the point for > future discussion. > > regards, tom lane Thank you! -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
