| From: | David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Daniel Farkaš <daniel(dot)farkas(at)datoris(dot)com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: BUG #17502: View based on window functions returns wrong results when queried |
| Date: | 2022-05-30 05:24:33 |
| Message-ID: | CAApHDvr94vSvxm4j_ykMBapFLXC8H_ntLg7oD5fhqfqR0x-snA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
On Mon, 30 May 2022 at 15:02, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> I'm not necessarily against adding the prohibition in the back
> branches. However, if this has been wrong since 10.x (if not
> further back) then it seems like few people are tripping over
> the inconsistency.
Yeah, perhaps. But we have received a report from 1 person and I think
it seems strange to adopt a policy that we require multiple bug
reports for the same issue before we consider fixing.
FWIW, just to demonstrate what a fix could look like, I've attached a
patch. I'm not planning to commit it if you really think we shouldn't
be fixing it.
The patch also does nothing for the weirdness that I described in the
DISTINCT ON case earlier in this thread.
David
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| dont_remove_srf_windowfuncs.patch | text/plain | 2.2 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2022-05-30 06:54:08 | Re: BUG #17485: Records missing from Primary Key index when doing REINDEX INDEX CONCURRENTLY |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2022-05-30 03:02:49 | Re: BUG #17502: View based on window functions returns wrong results when queried |