=?utf-8?Q?=C3=81lvaro?= Herrera writes:
> On 2025-Mar-09, Tom Lane wrote:
>> David Rowley writes:
>>> What are your thoughts on being a bit more brief with the naming and
>>> just prefix with "w" instead of "window"?
>> OK by me, any objections elsewhere?
> WFM.
Here's a hopefully-final v3 tha
David Rowley writes:
> What are your thoughts on being a bit more brief with the naming and
> just prefix with "w" instead of "window"? Looking at window.out, I see
> that the EXPLAIN output does become quite a bit wider than before. I
> favour the idea of saving a bit of space. There is an examp
David Rowley writes:
> The only minor points I noted down while reviewing were 1)
> name_active_windows()'s newname variable could be halved in size and,
> 2) explain.sql's new test could name the window "w1" instead of "w" to
> exercise the name selection code a bit better. Both are minor points,
On Tue, 11 Mar 2025 at 05:18, Tom Lane wrote:
> Here's a hopefully-final v3 that makes the two changes discussed.
> Now with a draft commit message, too.
Looks good to me.
The only minor points I noted down while reviewing were 1)
name_active_windows()'s newname variable could be halved in size
On 2025-Mar-09, Tom Lane wrote:
> David Rowley writes:
> > What are your thoughts on being a bit more brief with the naming and
> > just prefix with "w" instead of "window"? Looking at window.out, I see
> > that the EXPLAIN output does become quite a bit wider than before. I
> > favour the idea o
On Mon, 10 Mar 2025 at 11:19, Tom Lane wrote:
> OK, here's v2 done like that. I do like this output better.
> I backed off the idea of putting the WindowClause as such
> into the plan, partly because I didn't feel like debugging
> the setrefs.c problem that David discovered upthread.
> This way d
I wrote:
> I'll go try to code this up.
OK, here's v2 done like that. I do like this output better.
I backed off the idea of putting the WindowClause as such
into the plan, partly because I didn't feel like debugging
the setrefs.c problem that David discovered upthread.
This way does require a bi
On Mon, 10 Mar 2025 at 14:13, Tom Lane wrote:
> Hmm, OK. Do you think it could be sensible to put Run Condition
> before Filter, then? On the same grounds of "keeping related
> things together", it could be argued that Run Condition is
> related to the Window property. Also, the Run Condition a
=?utf-8?Q?=C3=81lvaro?= Herrera writes:
> Would it be possible and make sense to use notation of explicit WINDOW
> clauses, for cases where multiple window functions invoke identical
> window definitions?
There's something to be said for that. We would have to assign
made-up names to windows tha
Hello
Would it be possible and make sense to use notation of explicit WINDOW
clauses, for cases where multiple window functions invoke identical
window definitions? I'm thinking of something like
explain verbose SELECT
empno,
depname,
row_number() OVER testwin rn,
rank() OVER tes
On Sat, Mar 8, 2025 at 6:15 PM David Rowley wrote:
> On Sun, 9 Mar 2025 at 10:39, Tom Lane wrote:
> > One thing that puzzled me a bit is that many of the outputs
> > show "ROWS UNBOUNDED PRECEDING" in window functions where that
> > definitely wasn't in the source query. Eventually I realized
>
While thinking about the discussion at [1], I got annoyed about
how EXPLAIN still can't print a useful description of window
functions' window clauses (it just emits "OVER (?)"). The
difficulty is that there's no access to the original WindowClause
anymore; else we could re-use the ruleutils.c cod
On Sun, 9 Mar 2025 at 10:39, Tom Lane wrote:
> One thing that puzzled me a bit is that many of the outputs
> show "ROWS UNBOUNDED PRECEDING" in window functions where that
> definitely wasn't in the source query. Eventually I realized
> that that comes from window_row_number_support() and cohorts
13 matches
Mail list logo
