On Feb24, 2014, at 17:50 , Dean Rasheed <dean.a.rash...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 20 February 2014 01:48, Florian Pflug <f...@phlo.org> wrote: >> On Jan29, 2014, at 13:45 , Florian Pflug <f...@phlo.org> wrote: >>> In fact, I'm >>> currently leaning towards just forbidding non-strict forward transition >>> function with strict inverses, and adding non-NULL counters to the >>> aggregates that then require them. It's really only the SUM() aggregates >>> that are affected by this, I think. >> >> I finally got around to doing that, and the results aren't too bad. The >> attached patches required that the strictness settings of the forward and >> reverse transition functions agree, and employ exactly the same NULL-skipping >> logic we always had. >> >> The only aggregates seriously affected by that change were SUM(int2) and >> SUM(int4). > > I haven't looked at this in any detail yet, but that seems much neater > to me. It seems perfectly sensible that the forward and inverse > transition functions should have the same strictness settings, and > enforcing that keeps the logic simple, as well as hopefully making it > easier to document.
Good to hear that you agree! I'll try to find some time to update the docs. best regards, Florian Pflug -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
