From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Cc: xinwen@stu.scu.edu.cn, pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org, David Rowley <david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com>
Subject: Re: BUG #17777: An assert failed in nodeWindowAgg.c
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2023 18:12:32 -0500
Message-ID: <439391.1676070752@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230210230230.scuk6gqrks6c7sc7@awork3.anarazel.de>
References: <17777-860b739b6efde977@postgresql.org>
<20230210230230.scuk6gqrks6c7sc7@awork3.anarazel.de>
Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> The problem is that normally we supress the moving aggregate optimization if a
> volatile function is contained in the filter. But unfortunately,
> contain_volatile_functions() doesn't descend into subplans. So we don't see
> the volatile expression.
I would say that if a volatile function in the argument crashes things,
that's an executor bug. You won't get any sympathy from me for
complaints about whether contain_volatile_functions noticed that,
because *immutability markings can be lies*. It is not acceptable
to crash if they're wrong.
It looks to me like maybe we could just remove the Assert and do
- if (peraggstate->transValueCount == 1)
+ if (peraggstate->transValueCount < 2)
a few lines further down? I've not dug into the details though.
regards, tom lane
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, andres@anarazel.de, david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com
Subject: Re: BUG #17777: An assert failed in nodeWindowAgg.c
In-Reply-To: <439391.1676070752@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox