On Mon, 13 Feb 2023 at 13:55, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Code looks good now, but the comment still claims this is only
> important in the FILTER clause. I'd rewrite the whole thing
> perhaps:
>
> * We also don't risk using moving aggregates when there are subplans
> * in the arguments or FILTER clause. This is partly because
> * contain_volatile_functions() doesn't look inside subplans; but
> * there are other reasons why a subplan's output might be volatile.
> * For example, syncscan mode can render the results nonrepeatable.
That seems better, so I pushed it with that. Thanks.
David
