On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 10:19 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > I'm going to concede the point that this shouldn't really be a > priority for 9.6, but I might want to come back to it later.
It seems to me that if two aggregates are using the same transition function, they ought to also be using the same combine, serialization, and deserialization functions. I wrote a query to find cases where that wasn't so and found a few, which I changed before committing. DATA(insert ( 2100 n 0 int8_avg_accum numeric_poly_avg int8_avg_combine int8_avg_serialize int8_avg_deserialize int8_avg_accum int8_avg_accum_inv numeric_poly_avg f f 0 2281 17 48 2281 48 _null_ _null_ )); DATA(insert ( 2107 n 0 int8_avg_accum numeric_poly_sum numeric_poly_combine int8_avg_serialize int8_avg_deserialize int8_avg_accum int8_avg_accum_inv numeric_poly_sum f f 0 2281 17 48 2281 48 _null_ _null_ )); I changed the second of these from numeric_poly_combine to int8_avg_combine. DATA(insert ( 2103 n 0 numeric_avg_accum numeric_avg numeric_avg_combine numeric_avg_serialize numeric_avg_deserialize numeric_avg_accum numeric_accum_inv numeric_avg f f 0 2281 17 128 2281 128 _null_ _null_ )); DATA(insert ( 2114 n 0 numeric_avg_accum numeric_sum numeric_combine numeric_avg_serialize numeric_avg_deserialize numeric_avg_accum numeric_accum_inv numeric_sum f f 0 2281 17 128 2281 128 _null_ _null_ )); I changed the second of these from numeric_combine to numeric_avg_combine. I also added a regression test for this. Please let me know if I'm off-base here. Committed 0002+0003 with those changes, some minor cosmetic stuff, and of course the obligatory catversion bump. Oh, and fixed an OID conflict with the patch Magnus just committed. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers