I was wondering if I could just add minvfunc, and have the rest of the m* functions be assumed to be the same as their non-moving counterparts. Apparently the answer is 'no'. But in the process, I found a bad error message. When omitting mfinalfunc when there is a finalfunc, I get the error:
"ERROR: moving-aggregate implementation returns type jj_state, but plain implementation returns type jj_state." A rather peculiar complaint, analogous to the infamous "something failed: Success".
Looking at the code, it seems we are testing rettype != finaltype, but reporting aggmTransType and aggTransType. Why aren't we reporting what we are testing?
With the attached patch, it gives the more sensible "ERROR: moving-aggregate implementation returns type jj_state, but plain implementation returns type numeric."
Cheers,
Jeff