Re: [patch] bit XOR aggregate functions
Vik Fearing <vik@postgresfriends.org>
From: Vik Fearing <vik@postgresfriends.org>
To: Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>
Cc: "David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>,
David Fetter <david@fetter.org>,
Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com>,
Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com>,
"bashtanov@imap.cc" <bashtanov@imap.cc>,
"pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2021-03-07T11:39:38Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On 3/7/21 11:37 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote: > ne 7. 3. 2021 v 11:28 odesílatel Vik Fearing <vik@postgresfriends.org> > napsal: > >> On 3/7/21 11:24 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote: >>>> >>>> And so you are now mandating an ORDER BY on every query and in every >>>> aggregate and/or window function. Users will not like that at all. I >>>> certainly shan't. >>>> >>> >>> The mandatory ORDER BY clause should be necessary for operations when the >>> result depends on the order. You need an order for calculation of median. >>> And you don't need to know an order for average. More if the result is >> one >>> number and is not possible to do a visual check of correctness (like >>> median). >> >> The syntax for median (percentile_cont(0.5)) already requires an order >> by clause. You are now requiring one on array_agg(). >> > > array_agg is discuttable, because PostgreSQL arrays are ordered set type. > But very common usage is using arrays instead and unordered sets (because > ANSI/SQL sets) are not supported. But anyway - for arrays I can do visual > check if it is ordered well or not. If by "visual check" you mean "with my human eyeballs" then I would argue that that is always the case and we don't need nannying for other aggregates either. -- Vik Fearing
Commits
-
Add bit_xor aggregate function
- f9a0392e1cf3 14.0 landed