From: | Surafel Temesgen <surafel3000(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera from 2ndQuadrant <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
Cc: | Erik Rijkers <er(at)xs4all(dot)nl>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: FETCH FIRST clause WITH TIES option |
Date: | 2019-09-06 11:52:53 |
Message-ID: | CALAY4q_a78pFyCgSFDz4vG3eYyzxkOkaVYzYx0kezVrSZZvuuQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi Alvaro,
On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 1:52 AM Alvaro Herrera from 2ndQuadrant <
alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> wrote:
> As Tom just said in the thread for PERCENT, the gram.y changes need a
> better representation. Also, rename EXACT_NUMBER, per that thread.
>
> As far as I can tell, this concerns feature F867. I think we should
> mark that as supported after this patch -- please edit
> src/backend/catalog/sql_features.txt.
>
ok
>
> Earlier in the thread, Tomas Vondra said:
>
> > 3) I'm a bit confused by the initialization added to ExecInitLimit. It
> > first gets the tuple descriptor from the limitstate (it should not do
> so
>
> > directly but use ExecGetResultType). But when it creates the extra
> slot,
>
> > it uses ops extracted from the outer plan. That's strange, I guess ...
>
>
> >
>
>
> > And then it extracts the descriptor from the outer plan and uses it
> when
>
> > calling execTuplesMatchPrepare. But AFAIK it's going to be compared to
>
>
> > the last_slot, which is using a descriptor from the limitstate.
>
>
> >
>
>
> > IMHO all of this should use descriptor/ops from the outer plan, no? It
>
>
> > probably does not change anything because limit does not project, but
> it
>
> > seems confusing.
>
>
>
> and you replied:
>
> > agree
>
> ... yet this doesn't appear to have resulted in any change in the code,
> or I just missed it. Are you going to update the patch per that?
>
>
Its already done in v9 of the patch attached by Tomas
regards
Surafel
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2019-09-06 12:00:51 | Re: "long" type is not appropriate for counting tuples |
Previous Message | Surafel Temesgen | 2019-09-06 11:16:22 | Re: FETCH FIRST clause PERCENT option |