Re: Windowing Function Patch Review -> Standard Conformance

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.

--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com