Re: Aggregate transition state merging vs. hypothetical set functions
David Rowley <david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com>
From: David Rowley <david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi>,
PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2017-10-12T23:29:32Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On 13 October 2017 at 12:08, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Therefore, I think we need to bite the bullet and provide an aggregate > property (CREATE AGGREGATE argument / pg_aggregate column) that tells > whether the aggregate supports transition state merging. Likely this > should have been in the state-merging patch to begin with, but better > late than never. > > The main thing that probably has to be hashed out before we can write > that patch is what the default should be for user-created aggregates. > I am inclined to think that we should err on the side of safety and > default it to false (no merge support). You could argue that the > lack of complaints since 9.6 came out is sufficient evidence that > defaulting to true would be all right, but I'm not sure. Are you considering that this is an option only for ordered-set aggregates or for all? If the user defines their normal aggregate as not safe for merging, then surely it'll not be suitable to be used as a window function either, since the final function will also be called there multiple times per state. -- David Rowley http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
Commits
-
Improve spelling of new FINALFUNC_MODIFY aggregate attribute.
- f755a152d4e3 11.0 landed
-
Explicitly track whether aggregate final functions modify transition state.
- 4de2d4fba38f 11.0 landed