"Robert Haas" <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
> Unfortunately, if we don't want to add an explicit iswindowable flag
> (and I understand that that's ugly), then I think this is the way to
> go. It's a shame that people will have to make code changes, but
> inventing a fake AggState object just to get around this problem
> sounds worse. The array_agg code is new and the fact that it doesn't
> follow the design pattern should be considered a bug in that code
> rather than a justification for an ugly workaround.
Well, array_agg may be new but it's simply a re-implementation of a
design pattern that existed in contrib/intagg since 7.3 or so. I have
no problem with fixing array_agg --- what I'm wondering about is who
has copied intagg before.
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
