Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Why only those two?  Might as well make all the accum functions look alike.

> Yeah, there might be some others we could improve. float4_accum() and 
> float8_accum() look like they could be improved pretty easily, and 
> do_numeric_accum() should also be fixable with some hackery. I suppose 
> it's also worth optimizing int2_sum(), int4_sum() and int8_sum(). I'll 
> send a patch for this later today or tomorrow. Are there any other 
> transition functions where we can apply this technique?

Actually, do_numeric_accum can't be fixed easily because numeric is a
varlena type.  The basic requirement for this hack is that the size of
the transition value be constant ...

                        regards, tom lane

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?


Reply via email to