Re: [HACKERS] Re: Proposal/design feedback needed: WITHIN GROUP (sql standard ordered set aggregate functions)
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 2:27 PM, Andrew Gierth and...@tao11.riddles.org.uk wrote: Robert == Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes: Someone should do the same in WaitForBackgroundWorkerStartup so that building with -Werror works. Robert I don't get a warning there. Can you be more specific about Robert the problem? bgworker.c: In function 'WaitForBackgroundWorkerStartup': bgworker.c:866: warning: 'pid' may be used uninitialized in this function Does the attached patch fix it for you? -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company bgworker-wait-fix.patch Description: Binary data -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Re: Proposal/design feedback needed: WITHIN GROUP (sql standard ordered set aggregate functions)
On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 12:52 PM, Andrew Gierth and...@tao11.riddles.org.uk wrote: It compiles without error and looks ok... Thanks for checking. Committed. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Re: Proposal/design feedback needed: WITHIN GROUP (sql standard ordered set aggregate functions)
Robert == Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes: bgworker.c: In function 'WaitForBackgroundWorkerStartup': bgworker.c:866: warning: 'pid' may be used uninitialized in this function Robert Does the attached patch fix it for you? It compiles without error and looks ok... -- Andrew (irc:RhodiumToad) -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Re: Proposal/design feedback needed: WITHIN GROUP (sql standard ordered set aggregate functions)
On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 7:23 AM, Andrew Gierth and...@tao11.riddles.org.uk wrote: Peter Please fix compiler warnings: Someone should do the same in WaitForBackgroundWorkerStartup so that building with -Werror works. I don't get a warning there. Can you be more specific about the problem? -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Re: Proposal/design feedback needed: WITHIN GROUP (sql standard ordered set aggregate functions)
Robert == Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes: Someone should do the same in WaitForBackgroundWorkerStartup so that building with -Werror works. Robert I don't get a warning there. Can you be more specific about Robert the problem? bgworker.c: In function 'WaitForBackgroundWorkerStartup': bgworker.c:866: warning: 'pid' may be used uninitialized in this function gcc 4.2.2 / freebsd 8.2 -- Andrew (irc:RhodiumToad) -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Re: Proposal/design feedback needed: WITHIN GROUP (sql standard ordered set aggregate functions)
Peter == Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net writes: Peter Please fix compiler warnings: Someone should do the same in WaitForBackgroundWorkerStartup so that building with -Werror works. New patch coming shortly. -- Andrew. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Re: Proposal/design feedback needed: WITHIN GROUP (sql standard ordered set aggregate functions)
On Fri, 2013-09-13 at 14:56 +0530, Atri Sharma wrote: This is our complete patch for implementation of WITHIN GROUP. Please fix compiler warnings: inversedistribution.c: In function ‘mode_final’: inversedistribution.c:276:11: warning: ‘mode_val’ may be used uninitialized in this function [-Wmaybe-uninitialized] inversedistribution.c:299:8: warning: ‘last_val’ may be used uninitialized in this function [-Wmaybe-uninitialized] -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Re: Proposal/design feedback needed: WITHIN GROUP (sql standard ordered set aggregate functions)
On 7/19/13 11:59 AM, Atri Sharma wrote: Hi all, This is our current work-in-progress patch for WITHIN GROUP. This patch needs to be rebased. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Re: Proposal/design feedback needed: WITHIN GROUP (sql standard ordered set aggregate functions)
Sent from my iPad On 04-Sep-2013, at 21:38, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote: On 7/19/13 11:59 AM, Atri Sharma wrote: Hi all, This is our current work-in-progress patch for WITHIN GROUP. This patch needs to be rebased. This version of patch is quite old.We will be sending an updated patch before the start of September commitfest, with all the points you mentioned taken care of. Thanks for the points. Regards, Atri -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Re: Proposal/design feedback needed: WITHIN GROUP (sql standard ordered set aggregate functions)
On Fri, 2013-07-19 at 21:29 +0530, Atri Sharma wrote: Hi all, This is our current work-in-progress patch for WITHIN GROUP. Please fix these compiler warnings: parse_agg.c: In function ‘check_ungrouped_columns_walker’: parse_agg.c:848:3: warning: passing argument 1 of ‘check_ungrouped_columns_walker’ from incompatible pointer type [enabled by default] parse_agg.c:822:1: note: expected ‘struct Node *’ but argument is of type ‘struct List *’ parse_func.c: In function ‘make_fn_arguments’: parse_func.c:1540:9: warning: assignment from incompatible pointer type [enabled by default] parse_func.c:1547:15: warning: assignment from incompatible pointer type [enabled by default] -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Re: Proposal/design feedback needed: WITHIN GROUP (sql standard ordered set aggregate functions)
Noah Misch n...@leadboat.com writes: (I don't know whether VARIADIC transition functions work today, but that would become an orthogonal project.) Coincidentally enough, some Salesforce folk were asking me about allowing VARIADIC aggregates just a few days ago. I experimented enough to find out that if you make an array-accepting transition function, and then force the aggregate's pg_proc entry to look like it's variadic (by manually setting provariadic and some other fields), then everything seems to Just Work: the parser and executor are both fine with it. So I think all that's needed here is to add some syntax support to CREATE AGGREGATE, and probably make some tweaks in pg_dump. I was planning to go work on that sometime soon. Having said that, though, what Andrew seemed to want was VARIADIC ANY, which is a *completely* different kettle of fish, since the actual parameters can't be converted to an array. I'm not sure if that's as easy to support. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
