Fix first/last aggregates in HAVING clause#10111
Merged
Merged
Conversation
The optimization that turns first/last aggregates into index-backed subqueries replaced the aggregate references in the target list but not in the HAVING clause. The leftover reference then reached the executor and raised "Aggref found in non-Agg plan node". Replace the references in the HAVING clause as well so the query runs. Fixes #10059
Codecov Report✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests. 📢 Thoughts on this report? Let us know! |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
The optimization that turns first/last aggregates into index-backed
subqueries replaced the aggregate references in the target list but not
in the HAVING clause. The leftover reference then reached the executor
and raised "Aggref found in non-Agg plan node".
Replace the references in the HAVING clause as well so the query runs.
Fixes #10059