| From: | David Rowley <dgrowleyml(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>, Richard Guo <guofenglinux(at)gmail(dot)com>, Ronan Dunklau <ronan(dot)dunklau(at)aiven(dot)io>, Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, Pavel Luzanov <p(dot)luzanov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, Ranier Vilela <ranier(dot)vf(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Add proper planner support for ORDER BY / DISTINCT aggregates |
| Date: | 2023-01-17 03:39:38 |
| Message-ID: | CAApHDvovqhBKjg6+e85Tda-3neZNnKe-w4rRiFOTbHjdWC99AQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, 17 Jan 2023 at 13:16, Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 11 Jan 2023 at 05:24, David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > I'm wondering if 1349d279 should have just never opted to presort
> > Aggrefs which have volatile functions so that the existing behaviour
> > of unordered output is given always and nobody is fooled into thinking
> > this works correctly only to be disappointed later when they add some
> > other aggregate to their query or if we should fix both. Certainly,
> > it seems much easier to do the former.
> >
>
> I took a look at this, and I agree that the best solution is probably
> to have make_pathkeys_for_groupagg() ignore Aggrefs that contain
> volatile functions.
Thanks for giving that some additional thought. I've just pushed a
fix which adjusts things that way.
David
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2023-01-17 03:48:32 | Re: Generating code for query jumbling through gen_node_support.pl |
| Previous Message | houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com | 2023-01-17 03:37:07 | RE: Perform streaming logical transactions by background workers and parallel apply |