On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 8:16 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > This will make the min/max optimization code more visible to the rest of > the planner in a couple of ways: aside from being called at two places > not one, it will have some intermediate state that'll have to be kept in > PlannerInfo, and the "useful pathkeys" logic will have to be complicit > in letting paths that match the aggregates' requirements survive. But > it's not real bad, and it seems a lot better than continuing with the > fully-at-arms-length approach. > > Comments?
+1. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
