Re: FETCH FIRST clause WITH TIES option - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Alvaro Herrera from 2ndQuadrant
Subject Re: FETCH FIRST clause WITH TIES option
Date
Msg-id 20190905225158.GA30717@alvherre.pgsql
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: FETCH FIRST clause WITH TIES option  (Surafel Temesgen <surafel3000@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: FETCH FIRST clause WITH TIES option
List pgsql-hackers
As Tom just said in the thread for PERCENT, the gram.y changes need a
better representation.  Also, rename EXACT_NUMBER, per that thread.

As far as I can tell, this concerns feature F867.  I think we should
mark that as supported after this patch -- please edit
src/backend/catalog/sql_features.txt.

Earlier in the thread, Tomas Vondra said:

> 3) I'm a bit confused by the initialization added to ExecInitLimit. It
> first gets the tuple descriptor from the limitstate (it should not do so
                                                                     
 
> directly but use ExecGetResultType). But when it creates the extra slot,
                                                                     
 
> it uses ops extracted from the outer plan. That's strange, I guess ...
                                                                     
 
>
                                                                     
 
> And then it extracts the descriptor from the outer plan and uses it when
                                                                     
 
> calling execTuplesMatchPrepare. But AFAIK it's going to be compared to
                                                                     
 
> the last_slot, which is using a descriptor from the limitstate.
                                                                     
 
>
                                                                     
 
> IMHO all of this should use descriptor/ops from the outer plan, no? It
                                                                     
 
> probably does not change anything because limit does not project, but it
                                                                     
 
> seems confusing.
                                                                     
 

and you replied:

> agree

... yet this doesn't appear to have resulted in any change in the code,
or I just missed it.  Are you going to update the patch per that?

-- 
Álvaro Herrera                https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: FETCH FIRST clause PERCENT option
Next
From: Alvaro Herrera from 2ndQuadrant
Date:
Subject: Re: [bug fix] Produce a crash dump before main() on Windows