From: | David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Rajkumar Raghuwanshi <rajkumar(dot)raghuwanshi(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: partition table and stddev() /variance() behaviour |
Date: | 2018-06-21 13:47:18 |
Message-ID: | CAKJS1f9wY4Np6W1U-0pAV4cwyZZEZpeXTSd=zdKEmQ7_CuLD=A@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 22 June 2018 at 00:18, Rajkumar Raghuwanshi
<rajkumar(dot)raghuwanshi(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> CREATE TABLE part (c1 INT,c2 INT) PARTITION BY RANGE (c1);
> CREATE TABLE part_p1 PARTITION OF part FOR VALUES FROM (1) TO (3);
> CREATE TABLE part_p2 PARTITION OF part FOR VALUES FROM (3) TO (5);
>
> INSERT INTO part VALUES (1,5),(2,15),(3,3),(4,17);
>
> postgres=# SET parallel_setup_cost=0;
> postgres=# SELECT COUNT(c1),STDDEV(c2),VARIANCE(c2) FROM part;
> count | stddev | variance
> -------+--------+----------
> 4 | 0 | 0
> (1 row)
Well, that's quite surprising. It appears to be a bug in
numeric_poly_combine for machines without a working int128 type. The
parameters in accum_sum_copy are in the incorrect order.
The very minimal fix is attached, but I'll need to go look at where
the tests for this have gone.
--
David Rowley http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
fix_numeric_poly_combine.patch | application/octet-stream | 574 bytes |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2018-06-21 13:51:35 | Re: server crashed with TRAP: FailedAssertion("!(!parallel_aware || pathnode->path.parallel_safe)" |
Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2018-06-21 13:23:05 | Re: server crashed with TRAP: FailedAssertion("!(!parallel_aware || pathnode->path.parallel_safe)" |