| From: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Christopher Inokuchi <cinokuchi(at)gmail(dot)com>, Greg Sabino Mullane <htamfids(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Window Functions with identical PARTITION BY and ORDER BY clauses evaluated separately |
| Date: | 2025-03-09 19:48:25 |
| Message-ID: | CAKFQuwYKrE538QskTWa+_eznnKTFkNhRfnLW_H5OuNW4xgX1hQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
On Sun, Mar 9, 2025 at 10:27 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> "David G. Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > On Sat, Mar 8, 2025 at 12:50 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> >> For a shorter fix
> >> When multiple window functions are used, all the window functions
> >> having syntactically equivalent PARTITION BY and ORDER BY clauses
> >> in their window definitions are guaranteed to see the same
> >> ordering of the input rows, even if the ORDER BY does not uniquely
> >> determine the ordering.
>
> So let's go with
> my wording less the "syntactically".
>
>
+1
David J.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrei Lepikhov | 2025-03-10 09:22:17 | Re: Memoize in between of two JOIN nodes |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2025-03-09 17:27:45 | Re: Window Functions with identical PARTITION BY and ORDER BY clauses evaluated separately |