From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>
cc: Richard Guo <guofenglinux@gmail.com>,
        Ronan Dunklau <ronan.dunklau@aiven.io>,
        PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>,
        Ranier Vilela <ranier.vf@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Add proper planner support for ORDER BY / DISTINCT aggregates
In-reply-to: 
 <CAApHDvqtmK7AprGs=uh2+BNyew6L3OpC7hPSe43uD-7m1Dtx7w@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CAApHDvpHzfo92=R4W0+xVua3BUYCKMckWAmo-2t_KiXN-wYH=w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAApHDvrXnUFNiYQiHv4Eu_rtbMPsKeVT-KG93_dD-ZYs9G5OnA@mail.gmail.com>
 <4493999.1py09z8qHF@aivenronan> <3163474.aeNJFYEL58@aivenronan>
 <CAApHDvqS-p57j++gLMyQXmttk_MM3u243dWQ54FyW-7=4GP+1Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMbWs49hcB-Mj3MJTOesL5=y4oU+md=zEvDYdCBrOSaDvXLRGQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAApHDvr3JQv4_H7vfu5Djtw0ubKwGDwvNtPuphtaQY4utgj7bQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMbWs4_hAK6+0Gk=vZX+ikSFBx=6981iFLGkgLObDkvvGpjogg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAApHDvrai=tCuUhH=YUvDnysivzbabz4pGPGz_3SytysWmyNdg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMbWs49Xw1Sb4KOZx6CMGBjiCNvGCcAyXkwWRGNZivyYv2fGMg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAApHDvqtmK7AprGs=uh2+BNyew6L3OpC7hPSe43uD-7m1Dtx7w@mail.gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>
	message dated "Fri, 29 Jul 2022 06:49:53 +1200"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <1138715.1659282591.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2022 11:49:51 -0400
Message-ID: <1138716.1659282591@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/1138716.1659282591%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com> writes:
> I'd like to take a serious look at pushing this patch on the first few
> days of August, so if anyone is following along here that might have
> objections, can you do so before then?

Are you going to push the other patch (adjusting
select_outer_pathkeys_for_merge) first, so that we can see the residual
plan changes that this patch creates?  I'm not entirely comfortable
with the regression test changes as posted.  Likewise, it might be
better to fix DEFAULT_FDW_TUPLE_COST beforehand, to detangle what
the effects of that are.

Also, I think it's bad style to rely on aggpresorted defaulting to false.
You should explicitly initialize it anywhere that an Aggref node is
constructed.  It looks like there are just two places to fix
(parse_expr.c and parse_func.c).

Nothing else jumped out at me in a quick scan.

			regards, tom lane