Neil Conway <neilc@samurai.com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Why only those two? Might as well make all the accum functions look alike.
> Yeah, there might be some others we could improve. float4_accum() and
> float8_accum() look like they could be improved pretty easily, and
> do_numeric_accum() should also be fixable with some hackery. I suppose
> it's also worth optimizing int2_sum(), int4_sum() and int8_sum(). I'll
> send a patch for this later today or tomorrow. Are there any other
> transition functions where we can apply this technique?
Actually, do_numeric_accum can't be fixed easily because numeric is a
varlena type. The basic requirement for this hack is that the size of
the transition value be constant ...
regards, tom lane