"Jim C. Nasby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, Apr 15, 2006 at 12:51:24AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I had an epiphany that might serve as illustration of the above. We
>> have traditionally thought of COUNT(*) as an "aggregate over any base
>> type". But wouldn't it be cleaner to think of i
On Sat, Apr 15, 2006 at 12:51:24AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> I wrote:
> > ... Polya's Inventors' Paradox states that
> > "the more general problem may be easier to solve", and I've found that
> > usually holds up in program design too.
>
> While fooling around with the grammar patch that I showed e
I wrote:
> ... Polya's Inventors' Paradox states that
> "the more general problem may be easier to solve", and I've found that
> usually holds up in program design too.
While fooling around with the grammar patch that I showed earlier today,
I had an epiphany that might serve as illustration of th
I wrote [ in an off-list reply to Mark Dilger ]:
> I don't think this solves the parsing problem at all. The problem as I
> see it is that given
> CREATE AGGREGATE foo (bar ...
> it's not obvious whether bar is a def_elem name (old syntax) or a type
> name (new syntax). It's possible that w
Tom Lane wrote:
> I would really prefer to see CREATE AGGREGATE normalized to have a
> syntax comparable to CREATE FUNCTION (or DROP AGGREGATE for that
> matter):
> CREATE AGGREGATE aggname (typname [, ... ]) ...definition...
> but it's not clear how to get there without breaking backwards
>
"Sergey E. Koposov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Does it make sense to extend the aggregate
> functions to the only two-argument case?
No, I don't think so, for two reasons:
1. The user's-eye view: if someone wants 2 arguments, tomorrow he'll
want 3, etc. There's an old saying that "the only go
On Thu, 13 Apr 2006, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Sergey E. Koposov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > ... Nothing else and nothing internal need not to be changed to
> > insert new two-arg. aggregate functions into the core.
> > Am I right in this ?
>
> IIRC the main issues are the syntax of CREATE AGGRE
"Sergey E. Koposov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> ... Nothing else and nothing internal need not to be changed to
> insert new two-arg. aggregate functions into the core.
> Am I right in this ?
IIRC the main issues are the syntax of CREATE AGGREGATE and the actual
implementation in nodeAgg.c.
Hello All,
I just thought about implementing some two-argument aggregate functions from
SQL 2003 (like CORR(x,y), REGR_SLOPE(x,y) etc...)
( http://www.wiscorp.com/SQL2003Features.pdf , page 10)
1) I looked into the architecture of how the aggregate functions are created
and used, and it seemed f
