>> Attached is the v2 patch. I just added a test case for lag() to >> clarify that it is affected by the bug too. If there's no objection, >> I will push it to master and 19 branches. > > Hi! > Discussion link in your v2 is wrong - for `IGNORE/RESPECT NULLS can be > specified for (prokind == 'f'). ` thread
Opps. You are right. > Also, is there one more issue with leadlag_common: > > result = WinGetFuncArgInPartition(winobj, 0, > (forward ? offset : -offset), > WINDOW_SEEK_CURRENT, > const_offset, > &isnull, &isout); > > forward ? offset : -offset - same overflow? looks like lag(v, > -2147483648) would be wrong Good point. If offset == -2147483648, -offset will be -2147483648 due to an overflow. However, this is an old problem with leadlag_common, not specific to IGNORE NULLS. So I think this issue does not belong to v19 open items. What do you think? Regards, -- Tatsuo Ishii SRA OSS K.K. English: http://www.sraoss.co.jp/index_en/ Japanese:http://www.sraoss.co.jp
