| From: | Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| 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 21:37:13 |
| Message-ID: | 87lhzwcpmm.fsf@news-spur.riddles.org.uk |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>>>>> "Tom" == Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
Tom> After examining this more closely, ISTM that the direct
Tom> arguments are supposed to be processed as if they weren't inside
Tom> an aggregate call at all. That being the case, isn't it flat
Tom> out wrong for check_agg_arguments() to be examining the
Tom> agg_ordset list? It should ignore those expressions whilst
Tom> determining the aggregate's semantic level. As an example, an
Tom> upper-level Var in those expressions isn't grounds for deciding
Tom> that the aggregate isn't of the current query level.
Hmm... yes, you're probably right; but we'd still have to check somewhere
for improper nesting, no? since not even the direct args are allowed to
contain nested aggregate calls.
--
Andrew (irc:RhodiumToad)
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2013-12-07 21:57:47 | Re: plpgsql_check_function - rebase for 9.3 |
| Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2013-12-07 21:34:00 | Re: Re: [BUGS] BUG #7873: pg_restore --clean tries to drop tables that don't exist |