>>>>> "Tom" == Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes:
>> Do we want a decision on the fn_extra matter first, or shall I do>> one patch for the econtext, and a following one
forfn_extra?
Tom> I think they're somewhat independent, and probably best patchedTom> separately. In any case orderedsetagg.c's use
offn_extra is aTom> local matter that we'd not really have to fix in 9.4, except toTom> the extent that you think
third-partycode might copy it.
Given that there's been no attempt to expose ordered_set_startup /
ordered_set_transition* as some sort of API, I think it's virtually
inevitable that people will cargo-cult all of that code into any new
ordered set aggregate they might wish to create.
(Had one request so far for a mode() variant that returns the unique
modal value if one exists, otherwise null; so the current set of
ordered-set aggs by no means exhausts the possible applications.)
--
Andrew (irc:RhodiumToad)