From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
cc: Andrew Gierth <andrew@tao11.riddles.org.uk>,
        pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: CREATE OR REPLACE AGGREGATE?
In-reply-to: <20190317091410.GD3357@paquier.xyz>
References: <8736nm55gv.fsf@news-spur.riddles.org.uk>
 <20190317091410.GD3357@paquier.xyz>
Comments: In-reply-to Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
	message dated "Sun, 17 Mar 2019 18:14:10 +0900"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <22789.1552832570.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2019 10:22:50 -0400
Message-ID: <22790.1552832570@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> writes:
> On Sun, Mar 17, 2019 at 07:35:16AM +0000, Andrew Gierth wrote:
>> I took a bash at actually writing it and didn't see any obvious problems
>> (I'll post the patch in a bit). Is there some reason (other than
>> shortage of round tuits) why this might not be a good idea, or why it
>> hasn't been done before?

> Indeed.

Yeah, it seems like mostly a lack-of-round-tuits problem.

Updating the aggregate's dependencies correctly might be a bit tricky, but
it can't be any worse than the corresponding problem for functions...

			regards, tom lane