| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, xinwen(at)stu(dot)scu(dot)edu(dot)cn, pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: BUG #17777: An assert failed in nodeWindowAgg.c |
| Date: | 2023-02-13 00:46:33 |
| Message-ID: | 20230213004633.udoooi3gabxvtfbw@awork3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
Hi,
On 2023-02-13 13:31:54 +1300, David Rowley wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Feb 2023 at 05:19, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> > Why is it okay to check only the filter, and not the rest of the
> > WindowFunc's subexpressions? The arguments we've just run through
> > seem to apply to a subplan in the direct or aggregated arguments
> > as well.
>
> Good point. I had just been thinking in terms of the reported bug to
> make sure we inverse transition the same rows we transition. We also
> need to make sure the transition value matches in both transition
> directions.
What about find_compatible_agg()? I don't think there's as severe
consequences, but it also doesn't seem right as-is.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2023-02-13 00:55:37 | Re: BUG #17777: An assert failed in nodeWindowAgg.c |
| Previous Message | David Rowley | 2023-02-13 00:31:54 | Re: BUG #17777: An assert failed in nodeWindowAgg.c |