Mark Kirkwood wrote: > Bruce Momjian wrote: > > I have tested this patch but it generates regression failures. > > > > There was some code drift, so I am attaching an updated version of the > > patch, and the regression diffs. The 'four' column is an 'int4' so my > > guess is that somehow the wrong aggregate is being called. > > > > Good catch - I must have neglected to run the regression test after > amending the number of array arguments for the numeric avg :-(. > > Hmmm - this changing the number of array args for avg means we can't mix > transition functions for variance with final functions for avg - which > is exactly what the regression suite does with the 'newavg' aggregate.
Yea, I was just looking at this and came to same conclusion. > I've 'fixed' this by amending the definition of 'newavg' to use the > transition and final function that 'avg' does. However I found myself > asking if this lost us the point of that test - so I looked back at the > older postgres versions (e.g. 7.1.3) and saw that back *then* 'newavg' > and 'avg' were defined using the same functions...so I think making the > change as indicated is ok. > > I've attached a new patch with this change. OK, great, will apply. -- Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
