On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 10:32 PM, David Rowley
<david.row...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On 18 January 2016 at 16:44, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, Jan 17, 2016 at 9:26 PM, David Rowley
>> <david.row...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>> > hmm, so wouldn't that mean that the transition function would need to
>> > (for
>> > each input tuple):
>> >
>> > 1. Parse that StringInfo into tokens.
>> > 2. Create a new aggregate state object.
>> > 3. Populate the new aggregate state based on the tokenised StringInfo,
>> > this
>> > would perhaps require that various *_in() functions are called on each
>> > token.
>> > 4. Add the new tuple to the aggregate state.
>> > 5. Build a new StringInfo based on the aggregate state modified in 4.
>> >
>> > ?
>> I don't really know what you mean by parse the StringInfo into tokens.
>> The whole point of the expanded-object interface is to be able to keep
>> things in an expanded internal form so that you *don't* have to
>> repeatedly construct and deconstruct internal data structures.
> That was a response to Haribabu proposal, although perhaps I misunderstood
> that. However I'm not sure how a PolyNumAggState could be converted to a
> string and back again without doing any string parsing.

I just thought like direct mapping of the structure with text pointer.
something like
the below.

result = PG_ARGISNULL(0) ? NULL : (text *) PG_GETARG_POINTER(0);
state = (PolyNumAggState *)VARDATA(result);

To handle the big-endian or little-endian, we may need some extra changes.

Instead of adding 3 new columns to the pg_aggregate catalog table to handle
the internal types, either something like the above to handle the internal types
or some other way is better IMO.

Hari Babu
Fujitsu Australia

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to