Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: review: More frame options in window functions

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Hitoshi Harada <umi(dot)tanuki(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Erik Rijkers <er(at)xs4all(dot)nl>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: review: More frame options in window functions
Date: 2010-01-22 20:09:29
Message-ID: 603c8f071001221209n52c6696re69b62ad4f99acf7@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 3:02 PM, Hitoshi Harada <umi(dot)tanuki(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> 2010/1/19 Hitoshi Harada <umi(dot)tanuki(at)gmail(dot)com>:
>> Yeah, that's my point, too. The planner has to distinguish "four" from
>> sort pathkeys and to teach the executor the simple information which
>> column should be used to determine frame. I was bit wrong because some
>> of current executor code isn't like it, like using ordNumCols == 0 to
>> know whether partition equals to frame, though....
>
> And here's another version to fix this problem (I hope). Now the
> planner distinguish sort column from actual significant pathkeys. I
> tested it on both of 32bit and 64bit Linux.

Would it make sense to pull some of the infrastructure bits out of
this patch and commit those bits separately, so as to reduce the size
of the main patch?  In particular, the AggGetMemoryContext() stuff
looks like a good candidate for that treatment.

Why did you change BETWEEN from a TYPE_FUNC_NAME_KEYWORD to a COL_NAME_KEYWORD?

...Robert

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2010-01-22 20:12:03
Subject: Re: Largeobject Access Controls (r2460)
Previous:From: Robert HaasDate: 2010-01-22 19:20:01
Subject: Re: quoting psql varible as identifier

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group