| From: | Ryan Lambert <ryan(at)rustprooflabs(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Surafel Temesgen <surafel3000(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Vik Fearing <vik(dot)fearing(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Mark Dilger <hornschnorter(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk> |
| Subject: | Re: FETCH FIRST clause PERCENT option |
| Date: | 2019-08-06 22:52:12 |
| Message-ID: | CAN-V+g_pu2cgrM03rwU6y1J2tAMiaVN27Gjv5N6iN7M9_U5Usw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Surafel,
The patch did not did it automatically. Its query writer obligation to do
> that currently
Ok.
Your latest patch [1] passes make installcheck-world, I didn't test the
actual functionality this round.
plan = (Plan *) make_limit(plan,
> subparse->limitOffset,
> - subparse->limitCount);
> + subparse->limitCount,
> + subparse->limitOption);
>
I assume the limit percentage number goes into subparse->limitCount? If
so, I don't see that documented. Or does this truly only store the count?
The remainder of the code seems to make sense. I attached a patch with a
few minor changes in the comments. I need to go back to my notes and see
if I covered all the testing I had thought of, I should get to that later
this week.
[1]
/message-id/attachment/103028/percent-incremental-v6.patch
*Ryan Lambert*
>
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| percent-incremental-v6-comment-cleanup.patch | application/octet-stream | 4.1 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2019-08-06 22:53:10 | Re: no default hash partition |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2019-08-06 22:47:28 | remove "msg" parameter from convert_tuples_by_name |