On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 7:36 AM, Andreas Karlsson <andr...@proxel.se> wrote: > On 05/25/2016 03:32 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >> >> Andreas Karlsson <andr...@proxel.se> writes: >>> >>> On 05/25/2016 02:41 AM, Robert Haas wrote: >>>> >>>> I'd rather extend see us ALTER AGGREGATE to do this. >> >> >>> Wouldn't that prevent this from going into 9.6? I do not think changing >>> ALTER AGGREGATE is 9.6 materials. >> >> >> Well, it's debatable --- but if the patch to do it is small and the >> alternatives are really ugly, that would be an acceptable choice IMO. >> Certainly we'd want to add that capability eventually anyway. > > > Looked at this quickly and I do not think adding it would be what I consider > a small patch since we would essentially need to copy the validation logic > from DefineAggregate and AggregateCreate and modify it to fit the alter > case. I am leaning towards either either leaving the aggregate functions > alone or updating the catalog manually.
As this is proving to be a hassle, what would it cost to leave those operator classes as-is for 9.6 and come up with a cleaner solution at DDL level with 10.0? Then we could still focus on the other extensions that have content that can be easily switched. That's more than 90% of the things that need to marked with parallel-safe. -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
