Hitoshi Harada wrote:
> 2008/11/26 David Rowley <dgrowley(at)gmail(dot)com>:
>> I'm at a bit of a loss to what to do now. Should I wait for your work
>> Heikki? Or continue validating this patch?
>> The best thing I can think to do right now is continue and any problems I
>> find you can add regression tests for, then if we keep your regression tests
>> for Heikki's changes then we can validate those changes more quickly.
>> Any thoughts? Better ideas?
> Thanks to your great tests, we now know much more about specification
> and where to fail easily, so continuing makes sense but it may be good
> time to take a rest and wait for Heikki's patch completing.
Here's another updated patch, including all your bug fixes.
There's two known issues:
- ranking functions still don't treat peer rows correctly.
- I commented out the "this function requires ORDER BY clause in the
window" test in rank_up, because a window function shouldn't be poking
into the WindowState struct like that. I wonder if it's really needed?
In section 7.11, the SQL2008 spec says "if WD has no window ordering
clause, then the window ordering is implementation-dependent, and *all
rows are peers*". The regression test now fails because of this, but the
current behavior actually seems correct to me.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Richard Huxton||Date: 2008-11-26 09:21:49|
|Subject: Re: Enhancement to pg_dump|
|Previous:||From: Zdenek Kotala||Date: 2008-11-26 09:03:26|
|Subject: Re: [WIP] In-place upgrade|