On Fri, 2 Jul 2021 at 22:30, David Rowley wrote:
> Unless anyone thinks differently about this, I plan on pushing the
> patch in the next day or so.
Pushed (63b1af943)
David
On Thu, 1 Jul 2021 at 11:09, Tom Lane wrote:
> Just reading it over quickly, I noticed a comment mentioning
> "aggcombinedfn" which I suppose should be "aggcombinefn".
Thanks. I've fixed that locally.
> No particular opinion on whether this is a net reduction
> of logical complexity.
I had anot
David Rowley writes:
> Now that the pg15 branch is open, does anyone have any objections to this
> patch?
Just reading it over quickly, I noticed a comment mentioning
"aggcombinedfn" which I suppose should be "aggcombinefn".
No particular opinion on whether this is a net reduction
of logical co
On Sat, 12 Jun 2021 at 23:03, David Rowley wrote:
> I've rebased this and I'd like to propose this small cleanup for pg15.
Now that the pg15 branch is open, does anyone have any objections to this patch?
David
Much of nodeAgg.c does not really know the difference between the
aggregate's combine function and the aggregate's transition function.
This was done on purpose so that we can keep as much code the same as
possible between partial aggregate and finalize aggregate.
We can take this a bit further wi
