On 08/03/2015 08:53 AM, David Rowley wrote:
Attached is a delta patched which is based
on sharing_aggstate-heikki-2.patch to fix up the out-dated comments and
also a few more test scenarios which test the sharing works with matching
INITCOND and that it does not when they don't match.
What do
On 5 August 2015 at 03:03, Heikki Linnakangas hlinn...@iki.fi wrote:
On 08/03/2015 08:53 AM, David Rowley wrote:
Attached is a delta patched which is based
on sharing_aggstate-heikki-2.patch to fix up the out-dated comments and
also a few more test scenarios which test the sharing works with
On 29 July 2015 at 03:45, Heikki Linnakangas hlinn...@iki.fi wrote:
On 07/28/2015 04:14 AM, David Rowley wrote:
On 27 July 2015 at 20:11, Heikki Linnakangas hlinn...@iki.fi wrote:
On 07/27/2015 08:34 AM, David Rowley wrote:
In this function I also wasn't quite sure if it was with comparing
Heikki Linnakangas hlinn...@iki.fi writes:
On 07/28/2015 04:14 AM, David Rowley wrote:
I'd not thought of an input function being volatile before, but I guess
it's possible, which makes me a bit scared that we could be treading on
ground we shouldn't be. I know it's more of an output function
On 07/28/2015 04:14 AM, David Rowley wrote:
On 27 July 2015 at 20:11, Heikki Linnakangas hlinn...@iki.fi wrote:
On 07/27/2015 08:34 AM, David Rowley wrote:
In this function I also wasn't quite sure if it was with comparing both
non-NULL INITCOND's here. I believe my code comments may
Heikki Linnakangas hlinn...@iki.fi writes:
On 07/28/2015 07:18 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Heikki Linnakangas hlinn...@iki.fi writes:
BTW, we're also not checking if the transition or final functions are
volatile. But that was the same before this patch too.
Up to now it hasn't mattered.
Yes, it
On 27 July 2015 at 20:11, Heikki Linnakangas hlinn...@iki.fi wrote:
On 07/27/2015 08:34 AM, David Rowley wrote:
- * agg_input_types, agg_state_type, agg_result_type identify the input,
- * transition, and result types of the aggregate. These should all be
- * resolved to actual types (ie,
On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 7:44 PM, David Rowley
david.row...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 15 June 2015 at 12:05, David Rowley david.row...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
This basically allows an aggregate's state to be shared between other
aggregate functions when both aggregate's transition functions (and
On 27 July 2015 at 18:15, Haribabu Kommi kommi.harib...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 7:44 PM, David Rowley
david.row...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 15 June 2015 at 12:05, David Rowley david.row...@2ndquadrant.com
wrote:
This basically allows an aggregate's state to be shared
On 07/27/2015 08:34 AM, David Rowley wrote:
- * agg_input_types, agg_state_type, agg_result_type identify the input,
- * transition, and result types of the aggregate. These should all be
- * resolved to actual types (ie, none should ever be ANYELEMENT etc).
+ * agg_input_types identifies the
On 27 July 2015 at 20:11, Heikki Linnakangas hlinn...@iki.fi wrote:
On 07/27/2015 08:34 AM, David Rowley wrote:
In this function I also wasn't quite sure if it was with comparing both
non-NULL INITCOND's here. I believe my code comments may slightly
contradict what the code actually does,
On 07/09/2015 12:44 PM, David Rowley wrote:
On 15 June 2015 at 12:05, David Rowley david.row...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
This basically allows an aggregate's state to be shared between other
aggregate functions when both aggregate's transition functions (and a few
other things) match
There's
On 27 July 2015 at 03:24, Heikki Linnakangas hlinn...@iki.fi wrote:
On 07/09/2015 12:44 PM, David Rowley wrote:
On 15 June 2015 at 12:05, David Rowley david.row...@2ndquadrant.com
wrote:
This basically allows an aggregate's state to be shared between other
aggregate functions when both
On 15 June 2015 at 12:05, David Rowley david.row...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
This basically allows an aggregate's state to be shared between other
aggregate functions when both aggregate's transition functions (and a few
other things) match
There's quite a number of aggregates in our standard
Simon and I have been going over some ideas about how to make improvements
to aggregate performance by cutting down on the duplicate work that's done
when 2 aggregate functions are used where one knows how to satisfy all the
requirements of the other.
To cut a long story short, all our ideas will
15 matches
Mail list logo
