>>>>> "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:

Reply via email to