| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Oliver Ford <ojford(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
| Subject: | Re: WINDOW RANGE patch versus leakproofness |
| Date: | 2018-01-31 21:51:14 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZGn+DVT14PgN_JTgGZQwLw9qH79L-TZgi9Z4jabOr+Kw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 5:52 AM, Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On 30 January 2018 at 16:42, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> So I'm thinking that (a) we do not need to check for leaky functions used
>> in window support, and (b) therefore there's no need to avoid leaky
>> behavior in in_range support functions. Objections?
>
> Yes, I concur. Since window functions can only appear in the SELECT
> target list and ORDER BY clauses, they should never appear in a qual
> that gets considered for push down, and thus contain_leaked_vars()
> should never see a window function.
What about a query that uses window functions within a subquery?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2018-01-31 22:00:28 | pgsql: doc: clearify trigger behavior for inheritance |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2018-01-31 21:47:03 | Re: A typo in error message |