Hello 2010/8/3 Joshua Tolley <eggyk...@gmail.com>: > In case anyone's interested, I've taken the CTE-based grouping sets patch from > [1] and made it apply to 9.1, attached. I haven't yet done things like checked > it for whitespace consistency, style conformity, or anything else, but (tuits > permitting) hope to figure out how it works and get it closer to commitability > in some upcoming commitfest. > > I mention it here so that if someone else is working on it, we can avoid > duplicated effort, and to see if a CTE-based grouping sets implementation is > really the way we think we want to go. >
I am plaing with it now :). I have a plan to replace CTE with similar but explicit executor node. The main issue of existing patch was using just transformation to CTE. I agree, so it isn't too much extensiable in future. Now I am cleaning identifiers little bit. Any colaboration is welcome. My plan: 1) clean CTE patch 2) replace CTE with explicit executor node, but still based on tuplestore 3) when will be possible parallel processing based on hash agg - then we don't need to use tuplestore comments?? Regards Pavel > [1] http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2009-05/msg00700.php > > -- > Joshua Tolley / eggyknap > End Point Corporation > http://www.endpoint.com > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) > > iEYEARECAAYFAkxXrggACgkQRiRfCGf1UMMlCQCglaIdtPj8Qe6G60V2LHn5pFNn > kgIAniXRgIQEbVrK/eDVZnmKCzw33lT9 > =XVVV > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
