Tomas Vondra <t...@fuzzy.cz> writes: > On 25.4.2014 23:26, Tom Lane wrote: >> The problem is that the CREATE AGGREGATE syntax only specifies the >> name of the final function, not its argument list, so you have to >> make an assumption about the argument list in order to look up the >> final function in the first place.
> Yeah. And it wouldn't be clear which function to use in case two > suitable functions (with different signatures) exist. So I guess this > actually requires a parameter. Exactly. > I'd vote for "finalfunc_extra" - can't think of a better name, and I'm > not sure what the "m" in "mfinalfunc_extra" stands for. Sorry for not being clear. The "m" version is the alternate setting for the moving-aggregate sub-implementation, which is new as of a couple weeks ago: http://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=commitdiff;h=a9d9acbf219b9e96585779cd5f99d674d4ccba74 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