MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII;
 format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2018 12:08:38 +0100
From: Erik Rijkers <er@xs4all.nl>
To: Oliver Ford <ojford@gmail.com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Add RANGE with values and exclusions clauses to the Window
 Functions
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAGMVOdtGe=30u6D2WqwvWchE+-yNb9jKnEeG8BHyw7jHiGPR7w@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CAGMVOdu9sivPAxbNN0X+q19Sfv9edEPv=HibOJhB14TJv_RCQg@mail.gmail.com>
 <b2374b9461c349b17b50c77f3a70e1a1@xs4all.nl>
 <CAGMVOdsopg5ZAuJh9+ceq-s0pU2qqZsZn-jbL4A1c=h1iWaZVA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGMVOdvrZCwJg0BngM9GMO+LK=j20vhSfdk1gTTBNNH311Vgsw@mail.gmail.com>
 <bc8a1d397fa81d6ae33c297d0224184b@xs4all.nl>
 <2c084c1c2bf599ceb2afa87874de8bc1@xs4all.nl>
 <CAGMVOdvETRCKpeT06Uoq5RsNUOdH7d1iYy7C1Pze=L5=gBzs-Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <cdbe62a6eaddae00fa770c09ed346fc0@xs4all.nl>
 <CAGMVOdttRSUU3=tjgdhr902HmUVL1GLQWG0ZTVXi7OY59Xo0Xw@mail.gmail.com>
 <13279.1515535159@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CAGMVOdtYSNJusckQ_9vBkMsZBQzan=Uw-Z-uYG2fD9rZ2TP7pA@mail.gmail.com>
 <4139.1515567978@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CAGMVOdvJMfOzm0v4psCoAaVGfCbdFwNKzaSEhfTj8rE9UCz-eQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <c30e6457a6de09d26425af997f71996e@xs4all.nl>
 <CAGMVOdtGe=30u6D2WqwvWchE+-yNb9jKnEeG8BHyw7jHiGPR7w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <b244bc301d081cc7f2c6c840a7bce0fa@xs4all.nl>
User-Agent: XS4ALL Webmail
Precedence: bulk

On 2018-01-27 11:49, Oliver Ford wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 27, 2018 at 7:40 AM, Erik Rijkers <er@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>> On 2018-01-27 00:35, Oliver Ford wrote:
>>> 
>>> Attached patch implements an extensible version of the RANGE with
>>> values clause. It doesn't actually add any more type support than was
>> 
>> [...]
>>> 
>>> I've tested that the existing regression tests in previous versions
>>> still pass, and also added new tests for descending mode.
>>> 
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> Regression tests only succeed for assert-disabled compiles; they fail 
>> when
>> assert-enabled:
>> 
>> I used (Centos 6.9):
> 
> Could you please try the attached version? It works for me with asserts 
> enabled.
> 

[0001-window-frame-v8.patch]

Yes, that fixed it, thanks.

> Problem seems to be with an existing Assert in catcache.c:1545:
> 
> Assert(nkeys > 0 && nkeys < cache->cc_nkeys);
> 
> The "<" needs to be "<=" (and is changed in the attached patch).
> AFAICT this was never a problem before purely because no code before
> this patch called SearchSysCacheList4, so they always called with
> fewer keys than the number available. But it's surely correct to
> assert that the number of keys supplied is less than or equal to, not
> less than, the number of keys in the cache.