On Mon, 19 Oct 2026, 02:46 David Rowley, <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Sat, 3 Oct 2026 at 04:42, Matthias van de Meent <[email protected]> > wrote: > > In the partition_aggregate tests, there's a case where the explained > > query doesn't match the query that's executed just below. This has > > existed since the file was first committed (e2f1eb0ee3), and doesn't > > materially affect the plan, but if any issues were introduced it might > > not show up in this part of the test, so we should probably fix it. > > I looked at this and noticed a couple more mistakes. Can you share why > you picked the HAVING query over the version without?
Because that was more consistent with the rest of the queries in the file. Every other explained-and-then-executed query on pagg_tab_ml has a HAVING clause, except these. > v2 attached with the other things I noticed. array_agg has supported > partial aggregation since v16 (16fd03e95). Thanks, LGTM. Kind regards, Matthias van de Meent Databricks
