Andrew Gierth <[email protected]> writes:
> Something is wrong with the way chgParam is being handled in Agg nodes.
> The code in ExecReScanAgg seems to assume that if the lefttree doesn't
> have any parameter changes then it suffices to re-project the data from
> the existing hashtable; but of course this is nonsense if the parameter
> is in an input to an aggregate function.
It looks like it's sufficient to do this:
diff --git a/src/backend/executor/nodeAgg.c b/src/backend/executor/nodeAgg.c
index 1ec2515..f468fad 100644
*** a/src/backend/executor/nodeAgg.c
--- b/src/backend/executor/nodeAgg.c
*************** ExecReScanAgg(AggState *node)
*** 3425,3435 ****
return;
/*
! * If we do have the hash table and the subplan does not have
any
! * parameter changes, then we can just rescan the existing hash
table;
! * no need to build it again.
*/
! if (outerPlan->chgParam == NULL)
{
ResetTupleHashIterator(node->hashtable,
&node->hashiter);
return;
--- 3425,3436 ----
return;
/*
! * If we do have the hash table and there are no relevant
parameter
! * changes, then we can just rescan the existing hash table; no
need
! * to build it again.
*/
! if (node->ss.ps.chgParam == NULL &&
! outerPlan->chgParam == NULL)
{
ResetTupleHashIterator(node->hashtable,
&node->hashiter);
return;
I'm not sure if it's worth trying to distinguish whether the Param is
inside any aggregate calls or not. The existing code gets the right
answer for
select array(select x+sum(y) from generate_series(1,3) y group by y)
from generate_series(1,3) x;
and we'd be losing some efficiency for cases like that if we fix
it as above. But is it worth the trouble?
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list ([email protected])
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
