Re: Wrong results with grouping sets - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Richard Guo
Subject Re: Wrong results with grouping sets
Date
Msg-id CAMbWs49Jpn3_cRtTAHbiNrRcN0t4tDTvSp7CdaSX_sxg29SKZg@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Wrong results with grouping sets  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
Responses Re: Wrong results with grouping sets
List pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Jul 5, 2024 at 5:51 AM Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> On 2024-07-01 16:29:16 +0800, Richard Guo wrote:
> > Here is an updated version of this patchset.  I've run pgindent for it,
> > and also tweaked the commit messages a bit.
> >
> > In principle, 0001 can be backpatched to all supported versions to fix
> > the cases where there are subqueries in the grouping expressions; 0002
> > can be backpatched to 16 where we have the nullingrels stuff.  But both
> > patches seem to be quite invasive.  I'm not sure if we want to backpatch
> > them to stable branches.  Any thoughts about backpatching?
>
> As-is they can't be backpatched, unless I am missing something? Afaict they
> introduce rather thorough ABI breaks? And API breaks, actually?

Indeed, you're correct.  I did not think about this.  This patchset
modifies certain struct definitions in src/include/ and also changes
the signature of several functions, resulting in definite ABI and API
breaks.

BTW, from catversion.h I read:

 * Another common reason for a catversion update is a change in parsetree
 * external representation, since serialized parsetrees appear in stored
 * rules and new-style SQL functions.  Almost any change in primnodes.h or
 * parsenodes.h will warrant a catversion update.

Since this patchset changes the querytree produced by the parser, does
this indicate that a catversion bump is needed?

Thanks
Richard



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: David Rowley
Date:
Subject: Re: Use generation memory context for tuplestore.c
Next
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: Changing the state of data checksums in a running cluster