| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk> |
| Cc: | Atri Sharma <atri(dot)jiit(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Vik Fearing <vik(dot)fearing(at)dalibo(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: WITHIN GROUP patch |
| Date: | 2013-12-07 20:33:19 |
| Message-ID: | 14280.1386448399@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk> writes:
> "Tom" == Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Tom> I believe that the spec requires that the "direct" arguments of
> Tom> an inverse or hypothetical-set aggregate must not contain any
> Tom> Vars of the current query level.
> False.
After examining this more closely, ISTM that the direct arguments are
supposed to be processed as if they weren't inside an aggregate call at all.
That being the case, isn't it flat out wrong for check_agg_arguments()
to be examining the agg_ordset list? It should ignore those expressions
whilst determining the aggregate's semantic level. As an example, an
upper-level Var in those expressions isn't grounds for deciding that the
aggregate isn't of the current query level.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2013-12-07 20:44:34 | Re: Index overhead cost reporting |
| Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2013-12-07 20:25:59 | Re: ANALYZE sampling is too good |