>>>>> "Tom" == Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes:
>> Do we want a decision on the fn_extra matter first, or shall I do >> one patch for the econtext, and a following one for fn_extra? Tom> I think they're somewhat independent, and probably best patched Tom> separately. In any case orderedsetagg.c's use of fn_extra is a Tom> local matter that we'd not really have to fix in 9.4, except to Tom> the extent that you think third-party code might copy it. Given that there's been no attempt to expose ordered_set_startup / ordered_set_transition* as some sort of API, I think it's virtually inevitable that people will cargo-cult all of that code into any new ordered set aggregate they might wish to create. (Had one request so far for a mode() variant that returns the unique modal value if one exists, otherwise null; so the current set of ordered-set aggs by no means exhausts the possible applications.) -- Andrew (irc:RhodiumToad) -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
