Mark Kirkwood wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > I have tested this patch but it generates regression failures.
> > 
> > There was some code drift, so I am attaching an updated version of the
> > patch, and the regression diffs.  The 'four' column is an 'int4' so my
> > guess is that somehow the wrong aggregate is being called.
> > 
> Good catch - I must have neglected to run the regression test after 
> amending the number of array arguments for the numeric avg :-(.
> Hmmm - this changing the number of array args for avg means we can't mix 
> transition functions for variance with final functions for avg - which 
> is exactly what the regression suite does with the 'newavg' aggregate.

Yea, I was just looking at this and came to same conclusion.

> I've 'fixed' this by amending the definition of 'newavg' to use the 
> transition and final function that 'avg' does. However I found myself 
> asking if this lost us the point of that test - so I looked back at the 
> older postgres versions (e.g. 7.1.3) and saw that back *then* 'newavg' 
> and 'avg' were defined using the same I think making the 
> change as indicated is ok.
> I've attached a new patch with this change.

OK, great, will apply.

  Bruce Momjian  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

  + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?


Reply via email to