diff options
author | Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> | 2024-09-11 11:41:47 -0400 |
---|---|---|
committer | Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> | 2024-09-11 11:42:04 -0400 |
commit | f3336626d2e35d490fe26a8af0f993a32105a226 (patch) | |
tree | 3e0711bce58e634b055edcaf2a5358a62fa679e9 /src/backend/utils/adt/array_expanded.c | |
parent | 8e65d9ff963e707c51216db24252ebd608758e99 (diff) | |
download | postgresql-f3336626d2e35d490fe26a8af0f993a32105a226.tar.gz postgresql-f3336626d2e35d490fe26a8af0f993a32105a226.zip |
Remove incorrect Assert.
check_agglevels_and_constraints() asserted that if we find an
aggregate function in an EXPR_KIND_FROM_SUBSELECT expression, the
expression must be in a LATERAL subquery. Alexander Lakhin found a
case where that's not so: because of the odd scoping rules for NEW/OLD
within a rule, a reference to NEW/OLD could cause an aggregate to be
considered top-level even though it's in an unmarked sub-select.
The error message that would be thrown seems sufficiently on-point,
so just remove the Assert. (Hence, this is not a bug for production
builds.)
This Assert was added by me in commit eaccfded9 (9.3 era). It looks
like I put it in to cross-check that the new logic for detecting
misplaced aggregates (using agglevelsup) caught the same cases that a
previous check on p_lateral_active did. So there might have been some
related misbehavior before eaccfded9 ... but that's very ancient
history by now, so I didn't dig any deeper.
Per bug #18608 from Alexander Lakhin. Back-patch to all supported
branches.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/18608-48de0717508ee429@postgresql.org
Diffstat (limited to 'src/backend/utils/adt/array_expanded.c')
0 files changed, 0 insertions, 0 deletions