public inbox for [email protected]
help / color / mirror / Atom feedFrom: Robert Haas <[email protected]>
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <[email protected]>
Cc: Tom Lane <[email protected]>
Cc: Alexander Pyhalov <[email protected]>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <[email protected]>
Cc: Stephen Frost <[email protected]>
Cc: Finnerty, Jim <[email protected]>
Cc: Andres Freund <[email protected]>
Cc: Tomas Vondra <[email protected]>
Cc: Julien Rouhaud <[email protected]>
Cc: Daniel Gustafsson <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Partial aggregates pushdown
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2023 08:25:16 -0500
Message-ID: <CA+TgmoYCrtOvk2f32qQKZV=jNL35tandf2A2Dp_2F5ASuiG1BA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <TYAPR01MB551411A7DDFF0B38C5AAEDFE9584A@TYAPR01MB5514.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
References: <OSZPR01MB94244C52ABBE67C4A033B5E495B3A@OSZPR01MB9424.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
<CA+Tgmobvja+jytj5zcEcYgqzOaeJiqrrJxgqDf1q=3k8FepuWQ@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<CA+TgmoaiH_Na3y17PankZH59EgJWbgdPM-szb1eP6DQoOAMgYg@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<TYAPR01MB55149B8569F2FDA262654C4F95BAA@TYAPR01MB5514.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
<CA+TgmoYQKF-8vL8sctWuw_dskBiQWcspuNPJuH4ttusuiP529g@mail.gmail.com>
<CA+TgmoZHtdFEOULVXqhWgSg36R1e1ZEdSKJKb+VzTfRU0HaSZQ@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<CA+Tgmob7Dn_+UN1qgb_NUEoeg1jdug5mh+qz7q3Ed1NHAL_LNQ@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<TYAPR01MB551411A7DDFF0B38C5AAEDFE9584A@TYAPR01MB5514.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
On Wed, Dec 6, 2023 at 3:41 AM [email protected]
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Are you concerned about the hassle and potential human errors of manually adding new partial
> aggregation functions, rather than the catalog becoming bloated?
I'm concerned about both.
> The process of creating partial aggregation functions from aggregation functions can be automated,
> so I believe this issue can be resolved. However, automating it may increase the size of the patch
> even more, so overall, approach#2 might be better.
> To implement approach #2, it would be necessary to investigate how much additional code is required.
Yes. Unfortunately I fear that there is quite a lot of work left to do
here in order to produce a committable feature. To me it seems
necessary to conduct an investigation of approach #2. If the result of
that investigation is that nothing major stands in the way of approach
#2, then I think we should adopt it, which is more work. In addition,
the problems around transmitting serialized bytea blobs between
machines that can't be assumed to fully trust each other will need to
be addressed in some way, which seems like it will require a good deal
of design work, forming some kind of consensus, and then
implementation work to follow. In addition to that there may be some
small problems that need to be solved at a detail level, such as the
HAVING issue. I think the last category won't be too hard to sort out,
but that still leaves two really major areas to address.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
view thread (45+ messages) latest in thread
reply
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Re: Partial aggregates pushdown
In-Reply-To: <CA+TgmoYCrtOvk2f32qQKZV=jNL35tandf2A2Dp_2F5ASuiG1BA@mail.gmail.com>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox