| From: | David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: regress: query discrepancy between explain vs execution |
| Date: | 2026-10-19 00:46:42 |
| Message-ID: | CAApHDvoKy8XYYxB1COsgumoDpR8pduW6xpCBDK-=KQRmW88V=Q@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, 3 Oct 2026 at 04:42, Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> In the partition_aggregate tests, there's a case where the explained
> query doesn't match the query that's executed just below. This has
> existed since the file was first committed (e2f1eb0ee3), and doesn't
> materially affect the plan, but if any issues were introduced it might
> not show up in this part of the test, so we should probably fix it.
I looked at this and noticed a couple more mistakes. Can you share why
you picked the HAVING query over the version without?
v2 attached with the other things I noticed. array_agg has supported
partial aggregation since v16 (16fd03e95).
David
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| v2_fix_partition_agg_tests.patch | application/octet-stream | 5.4 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tatsuo Ishii | 2026-10-19 00:52:59 | Re: Row pattern recognition |
| Previous Message | shihao zhong | 2026-10-19 00:39:29 | Re: First draft of PG 19 release notes |