On Wed, 25 Jan 2023 at 02:39, Melanie Plageman
wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 02:00:33PM +1300, David Rowley wrote:
> > If you feel strongly about that, then feel free to show me what you
> > have in mind in more detail so I can think harder about it.
>
> Nah, I don't feel strongly. I think it
On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 02:00:33PM +1300, David Rowley wrote:
> Thanks for having a look at this.
>
> On Tue, 24 Jan 2023 at 13:26, Melanie Plageman
> wrote:
>
> > Since all three cases are exactly the same code, maybe you could
> > macro-ize it and add a single comment?
>
> Hmm, I kinda like t
Thanks for having a look at this.
On Tue, 24 Jan 2023 at 13:26, Melanie Plageman
wrote:
> Silly question, but was there any reason these were omitted in the first
> commit?
Good question, it's just that I didn't think of it at the time and
nobody else did or if they did, they didn't mention it.
On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 11:01:08AM +1300, David Rowley wrote:
> 9d9c02ccd [1] added infrastructure in the query planner and executor
> so that the executor would know to stop processing a monotonic
> WindowFunc when its value went beyond what some qual in the outer
> query could possibly match in f
9d9c02ccd [1] added infrastructure in the query planner and executor
so that the executor would know to stop processing a monotonic
WindowFunc when its value went beyond what some qual in the outer
query could possibly match in future evaluations due to the
WindowFunc's monotonic nature.
In that c
