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 <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: BUG #17777: An assert failed in nodeWindowAgg.c
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2023 20:08:09 -0500
Message-ID: <451442.1676077689@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230211004940.t5l2dz7rnss76zao@awork3.anarazel.de>
References: <17777-860b739b6efde977@postgresql.org>
<20230210230230.scuk6gqrks6c7sc7@awork3.anarazel.de>
<439391.1676070752@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<20230210232051.efjhtoqo6odk3gke@awork3.anarazel.de>
<443909.1676073430@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<20230211004940.t5l2dz7rnss76zao@awork3.anarazel.de>
Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> I think we could just add a !contain_subplans() to the code deciding whether
> it's safe to use the movable window optimization?
Yeah, perhaps. That doesn't seem like a mainstream use-case either.
Another idea, tying into your previous point, is to try to check
contain_volatile_functions in the planner before we've reduced
sublinks to subplans. I'm not sure that would be convenient to do
though; subplan-conversion happens pretty early.
(I'm quite hesitant to move the goalposts on what
contain_volatile_functions detects. As that comment indicates,
some thought has gone into its current behavior, and I think
we might hit some unwanted side-effects if we change it.)
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, dgrowleyml@gmail.com
Subject: Re: BUG #17777: An assert failed in nodeWindowAgg.c
In-Reply-To: <451442.1676077689@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