Re: Possible bug: SQL function parameter in window frame definition

2019-10-02 Thread Tom Lane
Andrew Gierth writes: > "Tom" == Tom Lane writes: > Tom> * I think you missed s/walk/mutate/ in some of the comments you > Tom> copied into query_tree_mutator. > ... where? The only mention of "walk" near query_tree_mutator is in its > header comment, which I didn't touch. Wup, sorry, I mispa

Re: Possible bug: SQL function parameter in window frame definition

2019-10-02 Thread Andrew Gierth
> "Tom" == Tom Lane writes: Tom> * Please run it through pgindent. Otherwise v13+ are going to be Tom> randomly different from older branches in this area, once we next Tom> pgindent HEAD. gotcha. Tom> * I think you missed s/walk/mutate/ in some of the comments you Tom> copied into que

Re: Possible bug: SQL function parameter in window frame definition

2019-10-02 Thread Tom Lane
Andrew Gierth writes: > OK. So here's the final patch. > (For the benefit of anyone in -hackers not following the original thread > in -general, the problem here is that expressions in window framing > clauses were not being walked or mutated by query_tree_walker / > query_tree_mutator. This has

Re: Possible bug: SQL function parameter in window frame definition

2019-10-02 Thread Andrew Gierth
> "Tom" == Tom Lane writes: >> I'm going to leave the assertion out for now and put in a comment >> for future reference. Tom> WFM. At this point it's clear it would be a separate piece of work Tom> not something to slide into the bug-fix patch, anyway. OK. So here's the final patch. (

Re: Possible bug: SQL function parameter in window frame definition

2019-10-02 Thread Tom Lane
Andrew Gierth writes: > I'm going to leave the assertion out for now and put in a comment for > future reference. WFM. At this point it's clear it would be a separate piece of work not something to slide into the bug-fix patch, anyway. regards, tom lane

Re: Possible bug: SQL function parameter in window frame definition

2019-10-02 Thread Andrew Gierth
> "Tom" == Tom Lane writes: Tom> Hm. transformRuleStmt already does special-case utility statements Tom> to some extent, so my inclination would be to make it do more of Tom> that. However, it looks like that might end up with rather Tom> spaghetti-ish code, as that function is kind of me

Re: Possible bug: SQL function parameter in window frame definition

2019-10-02 Thread Tom Lane
Andrew Gierth writes: > "Tom" == Tom Lane writes: > Tom> Also, in HEAD I'd be inclined to add assertions about utilityStmt > Tom> being NULL. > Tried this. The assertion is hit: > ... > Any suggestions where best to fix this? transformRuleStmt could be > taught to skip a lot of the per-Query

Re: Possible bug: SQL function parameter in window frame definition

2019-10-02 Thread Andrew Gierth
[moving to -hackers, removing OP and -general] > "Tom" == Tom Lane writes: Tom> Also, in HEAD I'd be inclined to add assertions about utilityStmt Tom> being NULL. Tried this. The assertion is hit: #3 0x00bb9144 in ExceptionalCondition (conditionName=0xd3c7a9 "query->utilityStmt