On Wednesday, January 4, 2023, Sayyid Ali Sajjad Rizavi
wrote:
>
>
> *Option 1:* Cast to the relevant column type in that position (to
> `integer` in this case), whenever we have an unknown type.
>
This happens when possible so any remaining cases are not possible. Or, at
least apparently not wo
On Wed, Jan 4, 2023 at 6:42 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 4, 2023 at 12:16 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >
> > It seems to be confusing and the user won't get the result even if
> > they search it by transactionid = 741. So I've attached the patch to
> > fix it. With the patch, the pg_locks
>
> Breaking working queries for this is not acceptable.
Good point, let's exclude Option 2.
> This happens when possible so any remaining cases are not possible. Or,
> at least apparently not worth the effort it would take to make work.
Actually this doesn't happen when all of the values in
On Wed, Jan 4, 2023 at 11:30 PM Peter Geoghegan wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 4, 2023 at 7:03 AM Robert Haas wrote:
> > But that having been said, I'm kind of astonished that you didn't know
> > about this already. The freezing behavior is in general extremely hard
> > to get right, and I guess I feel i
On Thu, Jan 5, 2023 at 6:18 AM David Rowley wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Jan 2023 at 10:25, Tom Lane wrote:
> > The thing that I find really distressing here is that it's been
> > like this for years and none of our automated testing caught it.
> > You'd have expected valgrind testing to do so ... but it
Please don’t top-post
On Wednesday, January 4, 2023, Sayyid Ali Sajjad Rizavi
wrote:
> Breaking working queries for this is not acceptable.
>
>
> Good point, let's exclude Option 2.
>
>
>> This happens when possible so any remaining cases are not possible. Or,
>> at least apparently not worth t
On Thu, 5 Jan 2023 at 16:12, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> David Rowley writes:
> > Additionally, it's also not that clear to me that sorting by more
> > columns in the sort below the WindowAgg would always be a win over
> > doing the final sort for the ORDER BY. What if the WHERE clause (that
> > could n
On 05/01/23 12:53, David Rowley wrote:
We *can* reuse Sorts where a more strict or equivalent sort order is
available. The question is how do we get the final WindowClause to do
something slightly more strict to save having to do anything for the
ORDER BY. One way you might think would be to
David Rowley wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Jan 2023 at 23:21, Spring Zhong wrote:
> > The plan is apparently inefficient, since the hash aggregate goes after the
> > Cartesian product. We could expect the query's performance get much
> > improved if the HashAggregate node can be pushed down to the SCAN n
101 - 109 of 109 matches
Mail list logo