Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2026 19:18:01 +0900 (JST)
Message-Id: <20260419.191801.590286723326428236.ishii@postgresql.org>
To: assam258@gmail.com
Cc: zsolt.parragi@percona.com, sjjang112233@gmail.com,
 vik@postgresfriends.org, er@xs4all.nl, jacob.champion@enterprisedb.com,
 david.g.johnston@gmail.com, peter@eisentraut.org,
 pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Row pattern recognition
From: Tatsuo Ishii <ishii@postgresql.org>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAAAe_zBju06XD97Yj30zmZJ+HL-E3U9J5Ok+Oir8D0cJU_+9ag@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CAAAe_zB7rAEJtT6hXgF85=_Tj8Nti45ZHbQw26gxTF2DBs3hJw@mail.gmail.com>
	<20260417.224708.424973995260396036.ishii@postgresql.org>
	<CAAAe_zBju06XD97Yj30zmZJ+HL-E3U9J5Ok+Oir8D0cJU_+9ag@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=iso-2022-jp
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20260419.191801.590286723326428236.ishii%40postgresql.org>
Precedence: bulk

>> So I guess I should have rebased v46 tree so that the commit is in the
>> work tree before applying your patches. Am I correct?
>>
> 
> Since the root cause was the patch file mix-up, a rebase would not
> have been necessary in this case. That said, the related fix that
> went into master ("Fix integer overflow in nodeWindowAgg.c") touches
> the same file as several of my patches, so it may cause conflicts
> when applying v47. Please let me know if anything is difficult to
> resolve.

Ok, I will not rebase current v46 and continue to apply your
incremental patches and review them, until we agree to ship v47.  I
may see conflicts while creating v47 patch sets. I will ask help if if
your assistance needed. Thanks in advance.

> Let me check the crash first. Since apparently the crash was caused by
>> my mis operation.
>>
> 
> Once confirmed, I will send the corrected patches first.

I confirmed 0001-0008 applied cleanly and see no compile
warning. Regression test passed, no crash.

> Regarding the README.rpr suggestion from the 0008 review: the
> documentation in execRPR.c has dependencies spread across the patch
> series, so separating it mid-review would be disruptive. I plan to
> split it out as part of the final patch list once all 31 patches have
> been reviewed.

Ok.

> I prefer this way.
> 
> 
> Good ― I will continue folding review feedback into the relevant
> existing patches. Patch numbers and subjects will stay stable across
> revisions.

Looking forward to seeing revised incremental patch sets.

Regards,
--
Tatsuo Ishii
SRA OSS K.K.
English: http://www.sraoss.co.jp/index_en/
Japanese:http://www.sraoss.co.jp