Dear Neil, > 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.
Ok. > > + /* 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. I agree it is somehow misleading. I'll clarify. > > + PG_FUNCTION_INFO_V1(booland_statefunc); > Not needed for builtin functions (they are assumed to be V1). Ok, I'll drop that. > > + /* 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? Well, the question really means "what about naming it every", that is you're very question above! I'll do a fix wrt to your comments, and send a 4th version. Thanks for your comments. -- Fabien Coelho - [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to [EMAIL PROTECTED])