On Mon, 19 Oct 2026 at 23:03, Matthias van de Meent <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Mon, 19 Oct 2026, 02:46 David Rowley, <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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.
Thanks for explaining. > > v2 attached with the other things I noticed. array_agg has supported > > partial aggregation since v16 (16fd03e95). > > Thanks, LGTM. Pushed. I did a back patch of this too, as this test file has really not changed much since REL_14_STABLE, and I felt doing that might reduce some future backpatching pain. David
