On Fri, 2014-08-15 at 13:53 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > I think that's right, and I rather like your (Jeff's) approach. It's > definitely true that we could do better if we have a mechanism for > serializing and deserializing group states, but (1) I think an awful > lot of cases would get an awful lot better even just with the approach > proposed here and (2) I doubt we would make the > serialization/deserialization interfaces mandatory, so even if we had > that we'd probably want a fallback strategy anyway.
Thank you for taking a look. To solve the problem for array_agg, that would open up two potentially lengthy discussions: 1. Trying to support non-serialized representations (like ArrayBuildState for array_agg) as a real type rather than using "internal". 2. What changes should we make to the aggregate API? As long as we're changing/extending it, should we go the whole way and support partial aggregation (particularly useful for parallelism)? Both of those discussions are worth having, and perhaps they can happen in parallel as I wrap up this patch. I'll see whether I can get consensus that my approach is (potentially) commit-worthy, and your statement that it (potentially) solves a real problem is a big help. Regards, Jeff Davis  http://blogs.msdn.com/b/craigfr/archive/2008/01/18/partial-aggregation.aspx -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers