Re: PATCH: decreasing memory needlessly consumed by array_agg
От | Jeff Davis |
---|---|
Тема | Re: PATCH: decreasing memory needlessly consumed by array_agg |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1421827311.12308.23.camel@jeff-desktop обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: PATCH: decreasing memory needlessly consumed by array_agg (Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: PATCH: decreasing memory needlessly consumed by array_agg
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, 2015-01-20 at 23:37 +0100, Tomas Vondra wrote: > Tom's message where he points that out is here: > http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20707.1396372100@sss.pgh.pa.us That message also says: "I think a patch that stood a chance of getting committed would need to detect whether the aggregate was being called in simple or grouped contexts, and apply different behaviors in the two cases." I take that as an objection to any patch which does not distinguish between the grouped and ungrouped aggregate cases, which includes your patch. I don't agree with that objection (or perhaps I don't understand it); but given the strong words above, I need to get some kind of response before I can consider committing your patch. > I generally agree that having two API 'facets' with different behavior > is slightly awkward and assymetric, but I wouldn't call that ugly. Right, your words are more precise (and polite). My apologies. > I > actually modified both APIs initially, but I think Ali is right that not > breaking the existing API (and keeping the original behavior in that > case) is better. We can break it any time we want in the future, but > it's impossible to "unbreak it" ;-) We can't break the old API, and I'm not suggesting that we do. I was hoping to find some alternative. Regards,Jeff Davis
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: