2008/11/26 Heikki Linnakangas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Hitoshi Harada wrote: >> >> 2008/11/26 David Rowley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >>> >>> I'm at a bit of a loss to what to do now. Should I wait for your work >>> Heikki? Or continue validating this patch? >>> >>> The best thing I can think to do right now is continue and any problems I >>> find you can add regression tests for, then if we keep your regression >>> tests >>> for Heikki's changes then we can validate those changes more quickly. >>> >>> Any thoughts? Better ideas? >> >> Thanks to your great tests, we now know much more about specification >> and where to fail easily, so continuing makes sense but it may be good >> time to take a rest and wait for Heikki's patch completing. > > Here's another updated patch, including all your bug fixes. > > There's two known issues: > - ranking functions still don't treat peer rows correctly. > > - I commented out the "this function requires ORDER BY clause in the window" > test in rank_up, because a window function shouldn't be poking into the > WindowState struct like that. I wonder if it's really needed? In section > 7.11, the SQL2008 spec says "if WD has no window ordering clause, then the > window ordering is implementation-dependent, and *all rows are peers*". The > regression test now fails because of this, but the current behavior actually > seems correct to me. >
Yes, I was wrong. The reason I put the error in rank() without ORDER BY is nothing but I didn't find it. It is actually a reasonable specification, isn't it. This is tiny thing, but "negative transition function" can be called "inverse transition function"? I feel the latter is more readable. Regards, -- Hitoshi Harada -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
