I don't especially like the syntax you invented for listing arguments in
CREATE AGGREGATE, especially not the WITHIN GROUP (*) special case.
If we stick with that we're going to need to touch a lot more places than
you have, notably regprocedure. I also fear that this syntax is not
appropriate for identifying aggregates reliably, ie, aggregate argument
lists that look different in this syntax could reduce to identical
pg_proc.proargs lists, and perhaps vice versa.
I think we should just have it list the arguments as they'd appear in
pg_proc, and rely on aggregate properties (to wit, aggkind and
aggndirectargs) to identify ordered-set and hypothetical aggregates.
A slightly different question is what \da ought to print. I can't
say I think that (VARIADIC "any") WITHIN GROUP (*) is going to prove
very helpful to users, but probably just (VARIADIC "any") isn't
going to do either, at least not unless we add an aggregate-kind
column to the printout, and maybe not even then. It might work to
cheat by duplicating the last item if it's variadic:
(..., VARIADIC "any") WITHIN GROUP (VARIADIC "any")
while if it's not variadic, we'd have to work out which argument
positions correspond to the ordered-set arguments and put them
in the right places.
Regardless of that, though ... what is the reasoning for inventing
pg_get_aggregate_arguments() rather than just making
pg_get_function_arguments() do the right thing? The separate function
seems to accomplish little except complicating life for clients, eg in
psql's describe.c.
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
