Skip to content

Conversation

@bubulalabu
Copy link
Contributor

@bubulalabu bubulalabu commented Oct 30, 2025

Which issue does this PR close?

Addresses portions of #17379.

Rationale for this change

Add support for aggregate and window UDFs in the same way as we did it for scalar UDFs here: #18019

Are these changes tested?

Yes

Are there any user-facing changes?

Yes, the changes are user-facing, documented, purely additive and non-breaking.

@github-actions github-actions bot added documentation Improvements or additions to documentation sql SQL Planner sqllogictest SQL Logic Tests (.slt) functions Changes to functions implementation labels Oct 30, 2025
@bubulalabu bubulalabu changed the title feat: added support for named arguments for aggregate and window udfs feat: support named arguments for aggregate and window udfs Oct 30, 2025
Copy link
Contributor

@Jefffrey Jefffrey left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks good to me overall; some CI failures to address though

...
```

### Named Arguments for Window UDFs
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I wonder if this section on named parameters should be generic across scalar/window/aggregate functions, instead of repeating it for each?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I removed all the explicit cases that were redundant

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Sorry what do you mean by this? I was referring to the documentation

Copy link
Contributor Author

@bubulalabu bubulalabu Nov 3, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

E.g. initially I explicitly tested if the order for unnamed and named arguments works for all kinds of UDFs. It's fine to test it only for one kind as all of them use the same underlying implementation.

If that wasn't what you were referring, it'd be great if you'd elaborate a bit on your initial comment. An example would be helpful.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm not sure if there is some kind of misunderstanding, but my comment is referring to the documentation, specifically the adding-udfs.md page. I'm not talking about the tests.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

My bad. Yes, there has been a misunderstanding on my end and your initial comment makes complete sense now. I'll sort it out soon.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

documentation Improvements or additions to documentation functions Changes to functions implementation sql SQL Planner sqllogictest SQL Logic Tests (.slt)

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants