Fabien COELHO wrote:
(1) boolean-and and boolean-or aggregates named bool_and and bool_or.
    they (SHOULD;-) correspond to standard sql every and some/any aggregates.
    they do not have the right name as there is a problem with
    the standard and the parser for some/any. Tom also think that
    the standard name is misleading because NULL are ignored.


As I understand it, there's an ambiguity issue with SOME/ANY, but not with EVERY. If so, can we implement EVERY per-spec at least? It's okay if we just add EVERY as an alias for BOOL_AND for the sake of homogeneity.


A few trivial points:

+ /* EVERY aggregate implementation conforming to SQL 2003 standard.
+  * must be strict.
+  */

This comment is misleading if we don't actually provide an implementation of EVERY that conforms to spec. There's a similar comment WRT to SOME/ANY.


+ PG_FUNCTION_INFO_V1(booland_statefunc);

Not needed for builtin functions (they are assumed to be V1).

+ /* what about every? */
+ DATA(insert OID = 2517 ( bool_and                                        PGNSP PGUID 12 t f f 
f i 1 16 "16" _null_ aggregate_dummy - _null_ ));
+ DESCR("boolean-and aggregate");
+ /* what about any/some? */

Seems these questions should be removed, no?

-Neil


---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?

http://archives.postgresql.org

Reply via email to