On Jan24, 2014, at 08:47 , Dean Rasheed <dean.a.rash...@gmail.com> wrote: > I think it should probably be broken up. It might be overly ambitious > to try to get all of this committed during this commitfest, and in any > case, I suspect that the committer would probably choose to commit it > in stages. Perhaps something like: > > Patch 1 > - Basic support for inverse transition functions, CREATE AGGREGATE > support and doc updates. This should include test cases to validate > that the underlying executor changes are correct, by defining custom > aggregates such as sum(int) and array_agg() using inverse transition > functions. > > Patch 2 > - Add built-in inverse transition functions for count, sum(int), and friends. > > Patch 3, 4... > - Other related groups of built-in aggregates. By this point, it > should be a fairly mechanical process. > > Splitting it up this way now should help to focus on getting patch 1 > correct, without being distracted by all the other aggregates that may > or may not usefully be made to have inverse transition functions. I > think the value of the feature has been proved, and it is good to see > that it can be applied to so many aggregates, but let's not try to do > it all at once.
Working on that now, will post individual patches later today. best regards, Florian Pflug -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
