public inbox for [email protected]
help / color / mirror / Atom feedFrom: David Rowley <[email protected]>
To: Dean Rasheed <[email protected]>
Cc: Tom Lane <[email protected]>
Cc: Richard Guo <[email protected]>
Cc: Ronan Dunklau <[email protected]>
Cc: Justin Pryzby <[email protected]>
Cc: Pavel Luzanov <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Cc: Ranier Vilela <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Add proper planner support for ORDER BY / DISTINCT aggregates
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2023 16:39:38 +1300
Message-ID: <CAApHDvovqhBKjg6+e85Tda-3neZNnKe-w4rRiFOTbHjdWC99AQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAEZATCWLqfyYR0zmD7Nh7WzPRd4bn2z+JFs3XNETZ-FVsy2-OQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <3163474.aeNJFYEL58@aivenronan>
<CAApHDvowz-gfbuq=8iwHebRcy4VpFuJv52B3jCcXVi+CPFrd1A@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<2202180.iZASKD2KPV@aivenlaptop>
<CAApHDvpkbvDEDJPNZrUqCsCLVC57ZY8qrPn8nGpQSrn4RYstZw@mail.gmail.com>
<CAMbWs4_+5cP+8xjiAc=hds935ZiiG6oepPDeVNovWhQ66DARJw@mail.gmail.com>
<CAApHDvqiEBY5_fVv4ZwUtWDPk0pJ6TdoYKFMwhhF_Gdkv-xAkg@mail.gmail.com>
<CAApHDvr1Sm+g9hbv4REOVuvQKeDWXcKUAhmbK5K+dfun0s9CvA@mail.gmail.com>
<CAApHDvptP-VK+ERLVs6UOAWaCQ7y4bf4_SSfRLCSyKWb-rW5zg@mail.gmail.com>
<CAApHDvrsmvoJ1GF18TCxLL1wE=QrHKdam4dy73a5UF_QpNKqgQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CAEZATCWETioXs5kY8vT6BVguY41_wD962VDk=u_Nvd7S1UXzuQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CAMbWs49sa00xmyw9TfHLYDsHhsud_YEUm3YRkEE4tJrUDqLCgQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CAApHDvruKdB5kaj6W9-kaM=zhMtgD2LvU5YDO3kFui6XSZC5Tg@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<CAApHDvov5upudo+03svepBJZ2o7DGtU7X+biVX12ni6ojUDn9A@mail.gmail.com>
<CAEZATCWLqfyYR0zmD7Nh7WzPRd4bn2z+JFs3XNETZ-FVsy2-OQ@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, 17 Jan 2023 at 13:16, Dean Rasheed <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 11 Jan 2023 at 05:24, David Rowley <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > I'm wondering if 1349d279 should have just never opted to presort
> > Aggrefs which have volatile functions so that the existing behaviour
> > of unordered output is given always and nobody is fooled into thinking
> > this works correctly only to be disappointed later when they add some
> > other aggregate to their query or if we should fix both. Certainly,
> > it seems much easier to do the former.
> >
>
> I took a look at this, and I agree that the best solution is probably
> to have make_pathkeys_for_groupagg() ignore Aggrefs that contain
> volatile functions.
Thanks for giving that some additional thought. I've just pushed a
fix which adjusts things that way.
David
view thread (5+ messages) latest in thread
reply
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: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Re: Add proper planner support for ORDER BY / DISTINCT aggregates
In-Reply-To: <CAApHDvovqhBKjg6+e85Tda-3neZNnKe-w4rRiFOTbHjdWC99AQ@mail.gmail.com>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox