Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi> writes:
> On 01/11/2020 22:47, Tom Lane wrote:
>> With that, we don't actually need aggregate_dummy() to exist at
>> all, because it's never referenced. Having "aggregate_dummy"
>> as the prosrc value for an aggregate function is now just a
>> random convention; any other string would do as well. (We could
>> save a few bytes in pg_proc by choosing a shorter string, but
>> probably it's better to stick to the existing convention.)
> NULL would seem like the natural value for that.
I wouldn't be in favor of that unless we changed the prolang value
as well. Which could certainly be considered, but it makes the
patch rather more invasive, and I'm not sure it's worth it.
regards, tom lane