Hi!
On Sun, Jun 2, 2024 at 10:55 AM jian he <jian.universality@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, May 31, 2024 at 8:12 AM Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I've revised some grammar including the sentence you've proposed.
> >
>
> -static List *groupclause_apply_groupingset(PlannerInfo *root, List *force);
> +static List *preprocess_groupclause(PlannerInfo *root, List *force);
>
> changing preprocess_groupclause the second argument
> from "force" to "gset" would be more intuitive, I think.
Probably, but my intention is to restore preprocess_groupclause() as
it was before 0452b461bc with minimal edits to support incremental
sort. I'd rather avoid refactoring if this area for now.
> `elog(ERROR, "Order of group-by clauses doesn't correspond incoming
> sort order");`
>
> I think this error message makes people wonder what "incoming sort order" is.
> BTW, "correspond", generally people use "correspond to".
Thank you. On the second thought, I think it would be better to turn
this into an assertion like the checks before.
> I did some minor cosmetic changes, mainly changing foreach to foreach_node.
> Please check the attachment.
I would avoid refactoring of preprocess_groupclause() for the reason
described above. But I picked the grammar fix for PlannerInfo's
comment.
------
Regards,
Alexander Korotkov
Supabase
