From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Bug Fix: COLLATE with multiple ORDER BYs in aggregates |
Date: | 2013-04-25 17:55:19 |
Message-ID: | 20130425175519.GI11158@awork2.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2013-04-25 13:42:32 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> writes:
> > While testing the upcoming FILTER clause for aggregates, Erik Rijkers
> > uncovered a long-standing bug in $subject, namely that this case
> > wasn't handled. Please find attached a patch by Andrew Gierth and
> > myself which fixes this issue and adds a regression test to ensure it
> > remains fixed.
>
> I don't find this patch to be a good idea.
>
> The argument for it seems to be that
>
> array_agg(a COLLATE "C" ORDER BY b COLLATE "POSIX")
>
> should not throw an error, but why not?
Uh. Why should it? SELECT foo COLLATE "C" FROM ... ORDER BY bar COLLATE
"POSIX" doesn't throw one either?
> And what does that have to do with whacking around the code for CASE?
I guess that's to avoid to repeat that already triplicated block of code
once more. The goal seems to make sense to me, although I am not 100%
that thats the nicest solution to get of the repetition.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Timothy Garnett | 2013-04-25 17:56:22 | Re: Allowing parallel pg_restore from pipe |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2013-04-25 17:42:32 | Re: Bug Fix: COLLATE with multiple ORDER BYs in aggregates |