Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > I definitely agree that the current output is messed up, but I'm not > sure your proposed output is much better. I wonder if it shouldn't > say something like: > Output: serialfn(transfn(args)) > for the partial aggregate and > Output: finalfn(combinefn(deserialfn(args))) > for the finalize aggregate step.
> Or maybe just insert the word PARTIAL before each partial aggregate > step, like PARTIAL sum(num) for the partial step and then just > sum(num) for the final step. +1 for the latter, if we can do it conveniently. I think exposing the names of the aggregate implementation functions would be very user-unfriendly, as nobody but us hackers knows what those are. > I think ending up with sum(sum(num)) is > right out. It doesn't look so bad for that case but avg(avg(num)) > would certainly imply something that's not the actual behavior. Agreed. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers