1349d2790 added support so that aggregate functions with an ORDER BY or
DISTINCT clause could make use of presorted inputs to avoid an implicit
sort within nodeAgg.c. That commit failed to consider that a FILTER
clause may exist that filters rows before the aggregate function
arguments are evaluated. That can be problematic if an aggregate
argument contains an expression which could error out during evaluation.
It's perfectly valid to want to have a FILTER clause which eliminates
such values, and with the pre-sorted path added in 1349d2790, it was
possible that the planner would produce a plan with a Sort node above
the Aggregate to perform the sort on the aggregate's arguments long before
the Aggregate node would filter out the non-matching values.
Here we fix this by inspecting ORDER BY / DISTINCT aggregate functions
which have a FILTER clause to see if the aggregate's arguments are
anything more complex than a Var or a Const. Evaluating these isn't
going to cause an error. If we find any non-Var, non-Const parameters
then the planner will now opt to perform the sort in the Aggregate node
for these aggregates, i.e. disable the presorted aggregate optimization.
An alternative fix would have been to completely disallow the presorted
optimization for Aggrefs with any FILTER clause, but that wasn't done as
that could cause large performance regressions for queries that see
significant gains from 1349d2790 due to presorted results coming in from
an Index Scan.
Backpatch to 16, where 1349d2790 was introduced
Author: David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>
Reported-by: Kaimeh <kkaimeh@gmail.com>
Diagnosed-by: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAK-%2BJz9J%3DQ06-M7cDJoPNeYbz5EZDqkjQbJnmRyQyzkbRGsYkA%40mail.gmail.com
Backpatch-through: 16
887a232371