Hi Henson,
> Hi all,
>
> Resolved since the last post:
>
> D1. Single-row frame conformance, Subclause 6.10.2 -- Tatsuo's call [6]
> was to reject. Both ROWS BETWEEN CURRENT ROW AND CURRENT ROW and
> AND 0 FOLLOWING are now rejected (nocfbot-0025), which in turn
> unblocks the held ExecRPRProcessRow change (nocfbot-0026).
>
> Open decisions (repeated with context at the end):
>
> D2. The RPRContext consolidation -- Tatsuo's call as co-author;
> non-blocking either way [4].
> D3. The AST "absorption" rename -- Tatsuo's call [2].
>
> [1] Jian's review, round 1 (2026-05-26):
>
> https://postgr.es/m/CACJufxH-DZePhbdJM=8nnyceqisbbxxltw54ilhxiynq+4h...@mail.gmail.com
> [2] my round-1 reply -- AST "absorption" rename deferred to Tatsuo (D3,
> 2026-05-27):
>
> https://postgr.es/m/CAAAe_zDephfiDA_A3FN0hCymJRogEr=rt3qoctf4qmydlk+...@mail.gmail.com
> [3] Jian's review, round 2 (2026-05-28):
>
> https://postgr.es/m/cacjufxgx17thwueoq1tm5xbrhz2hxm1asoozc3gv25mygmy...@mail.gmail.com
> [4] my round-2 reply -- RPRContext deferred to Tatsuo (D2, 2026-05-29):
>
> https://postgr.es/m/caaae_zah0mvp0tbmw3ptlehjepiybz0473zjrm9pwlpseef...@mail.gmail.com
> [5] single-row frame conformance question (D1, 2026-05-29):
>
> https://postgr.es/m/CAAAe_zCbSU=dd-4qtl2qabqwq-cf51n_851a9y5rooz0wj0...@mail.gmail.com
> [6] Tatsuo's reply -- reject single-row frames (D1 resolved, 2026-05-30):
>
> https://postgr.es/m/[email protected]
> [7] Jian's review, round 3 (2026-05-30):
>
> https://postgr.es/m/CACJufxEsaU8GQ4yeXTWhAO8VjbrZTh5CpvUqz=4a3t0cwz4...@mail.gmail.com
>
> Attached: the v47 feature series (v47-0001..0009) rebased onto current
> master, plus the incremental patch series carried on top of it.
>
> Base:
>
> 9a41b34a287 2026-05-26 doc: add comma to UPDATE docs, for consistency
>
> Unchanged -- rebase only (already posted; only rebased, no content change).
> Titles for reference:
>
> nocfbot-0001 Add DEFINE non-volatile baseline to rpr_integration B9
> nocfbot-0002 Unify RPR DEFINE walkers and reject volatile callees
While looking into 0002, I noticed some minor ereport calling style
issues.
Recently we start to use the style:
ereport(ERROR,
errcode(ERRCODE_FEATURE_NOT_SUPPORTED),
Rather than (old style):
ereport(ERROR,
(errcode(ERRCODE_FEATURE_NOT_SUPPORTED),
Grepping patches shows following results that hire the old style.
$ grep -n '(errcode' *|grep '+'
nocfbot-0002-Unify-RPR-DEFINE-walkers-and-reject-volatile-call.txt:1243:+
(errcode(ERRCODE_FEATURE_NOT_SUPPORTED),
nocfbot-0002-Unify-RPR-DEFINE-walkers-and-reject-volatile-call.txt:1248:+
(errcode(ERRCODE_FEATURE_NOT_SUPPORTED),
nocfbot-0002-Unify-RPR-DEFINE-walkers-and-reject-volatile-call.txt:1421:+
(errcode(ERRCODE_SYNTAX_ERROR),
nocfbot-0002-Unify-RPR-DEFINE-walkers-and-reject-volatile-call.txt:1428:+
(errcode(ERRCODE_SYNTAX_ERROR),
nocfbot-0002-Unify-RPR-DEFINE-walkers-and-reject-volatile-call.txt:1451:+
(errcode(ERRCODE_SYNTAX_ERROR),
nocfbot-0002-Unify-RPR-DEFINE-walkers-and-reject-volatile-call.txt:1457:+
(errcode(ERRCODE_SYNTAX_ERROR),
nocfbot-0002-Unify-RPR-DEFINE-walkers-and-reject-volatile-call.txt:1463:+
(errcode(ERRCODE_SYNTAX_ERROR),
nocfbot-0002-Unify-RPR-DEFINE-walkers-and-reject-volatile-call.txt:1471:+
(errcode(ERRCODE_SYNTAX_ERROR),
nocfbot-0002-Unify-RPR-DEFINE-walkers-and-reject-volatile-call.txt:1494:+
(errcode(ERRCODE_FEATURE_NOT_SUPPORTED),
nocfbot-0002-Unify-RPR-DEFINE-walkers-and-reject-volatile-call.txt:1504:+
(errcode(ERRCODE_FEATURE_NOT_SUPPORTED),
nocfbot-0025-Reject-single-row-window-frame-in-row-pattern-rec.txt:55:+
(errcode(ERRCODE_WINDOWING_ERROR),
Regards,
--
Tatsuo Ishii
SRA OSS K.K.
English: http://www.sraoss.co.jp/index_en/
Japanese:http://www.sraoss.co.jp
