>>>>> "Tom" == Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes:
>> Furthermore, I can't help noticing that the increased complexity >> has now pretty much negated your original arguments for moving so >> much of the work out of nodeAgg.c. Tom> The key reason for that was, and remains, not having the Tom> behavior hard-wired in nodeAgg; I believe that this design Tom> permits things to be accomplished in aggregate implementation Tom> functions that would not have been possible with the original Tom> patch. I'm willing to accept some code growth to have that Tom> flexibility. Do you have an actual use case? -- Andrew (irc:RhodiumToad) -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
