On Wed, 2004-12-01 at 08:37, Neil Conway wrote: > On Wed, 2004-12-01 at 08:25 +0000, Simon Riggs wrote: > > I'd be a little twitchy about new memory contexts at this stage of beta, > > but if the code is fairly well isolated that could be good. > > This would be for 8.1 anyway. > > > Would it possible to differentiate between well-known builtin functions > > and added transition functions? > > IMHO, this would be ugly and add unnecessary complexity. I'd like to > find a solution that actually fixes the problem, rather than just > working around it in the common case.
It would be my suggestion to implement the optimisation for the common case *now*, then fix the general case later. Please shave 20% off everybody's aggregation queries, ugly or not. You'll see a lot of happy people. -- Best Regards, Simon Riggs ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match