Обсуждение: BUG #7831: user defined-aggregated don't set initcond to null when unspecified, instead uses its first argument
BUG #7831: user defined-aggregated don't set initcond to null when unspecified, instead uses its first argument
От
acamari@verlet.org
Дата:
The following bug has been logged on the website:
Bug reference: 7831
Logged by: Abel Abraham Camarillo Ojeda
Email address: acamari@verlet.org
PostgreSQL version: 9.1.2
Operating system: OpenBSD-5.1/amd64.MP
Description: =
user defined-aggregated don't set initcond to null when unspecified, instead
uses its first argument.
To reproduce:
$ =
$ cat > /tmp/sql
create or replace function
_foo (state double precision, i double precision)
returns double precision language sql immutable strict as
$$
select 999::double precision;
$$;
create aggregate foo (double precision) (
sfunc =3D _foo,
stype =3D double precision
);
select foo(0);
$ =
$ psql -U postgres template1 < /tmp/sql
CREATE FUNCTION
CREATE AGGREGATE
foo =
-----
0
(1 row)
$
$ psql -U postgres template1
psql (9.1.2)
Type "help" for help.
template1=3D# =
acamari@verlet.org writes: > user defined-aggregated don't set initcond to null when unspecified, instead > uses its first argument. And your point is? AFAICS this is the documented behavior when the transition function is strict. See http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.1/static/sql-createaggregate.html 6th paragraph under "Description". regards, tom lane
Re: BUG #7831: user defined-aggregated don't set initcond to null when unspecified, instead uses its first argument
От
Abel Abraham Camarillo Ojeda
Дата:
On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 10:53 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > acamari@verlet.org writes: >> user defined-aggregated don't set initcond to null when unspecified, instead >> uses its first argument. > > And your point is? > > AFAICS this is the documented behavior when the transition function > is strict. See > http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.1/static/sql-createaggregate.html > 6th paragraph under "Description". > > regards, tom lane Oh sorry... I think that I didn't read that reference enough times, I was mistaken. Thank you, sorry for the noise...