that's generated for a whole-row Var referencing the subquery, when the
subquery is in the nullable side of an outer join. The previous coding
instead put PlaceHolderVars around the elements of the RowExpr. The effect
was that when the outer join made the subquery outputs go to null, the
whole-row Var produced ROW(NULL,NULL,...) rather than just NULL. There
are arguments afoot about whether those things ought to be semantically
indistinguishable, but for the moment they are not entirely so, and the
planner needs to take care that its machinations preserve the difference.
Per bug #5025.
Making this feasible required refactoring ResolveNew() to allow more caller
control over what is substituted for a Var. I chose to make ResolveNew()
a wrapper around a new general-purpose function replace_rte_variables().
I also fixed the ancient bogosity that ResolveNew might fail to set
a query's hasSubLinks field after inserting a SubLink in it. Although
all current callers make sure that happens anyway, we've had bugs of that
sort before, and it seemed like a good time to install a proper solution.
Back-patch to 8.4. The problem can be demonstrated clear back to 8.0,
but the fix would be too invasive in earlier branches; not to mention
that people may be depending on the subtly-incorrect behavior. The
8.4 series is new enough that fixing this probably won't cause complaints,
but it might in older branches. Also, 8.4 shows the incorrect behavior
in more cases than older branches do, because it is able to flatten
subqueries in more cases.
subqueries into the same thing you'd have gotten from IN (except always with
unknownEqFalse = true, so as to get the proper semantics for an EXISTS).
I believe this fixes the last case within CVS HEAD in which an EXISTS could
give worse performance than an equivalent IN subquery.
The tricky part of this is that if the upper query probes the EXISTS for only
a few rows, the hashing implementation can actually be worse than the default,
and therefore we need to make a cost-based decision about which way to use.
But at the time when the planner generates plans for subqueries, it doesn't
really know how many times the subquery will be executed. The least invasive
solution seems to be to generate both plans and postpone the choice until
execution. Therefore, in a query that has been optimized this way, EXPLAIN
will show two subplans for the EXISTS, of which only one will actually get
executed.
There is a lot more that could be done based on this infrastructure: in
particular it's interesting to consider switching to the hash plan if we start
out using the non-hashed plan but find a lot more upper rows going by than we
expected. I have therefore left some minor inefficiencies in place, such as
initializing both subplans even though we will currently only use one.
parent, not only those with RangeTblRefs. We need them in ExecCheckRTPerms.
Report by Brendan O'Shea. Back-patch to 8.2, where pull_up_simple_union_all
was introduced.
RTE of interest, rather than the whole rangetable list. This makes
the API more understandable and avoids duplicate RTE lookups. This
patch reverts no-longer-needed portions of my patch of 2004-08-19.
Formerly, if such a clause contained no aggregate functions we mistakenly
treated it as equivalent to WHERE. Per spec it must cause the query to
be treated as a grouped query of a single group, the same as appearance
of aggregate functions would do. Also, the HAVING filter must execute
after aggregate function computation even if it itself contains no
aggregate functions.
Also performed an initial run through of upgrading our Copyright date to
extend to 2005 ... first run here was very simple ... change everything
where: grep 1996-2004 && the word 'Copyright' ... scanned through the
generated list with 'less' first, and after, to make sure that I only
picked up the right entries ...
presence of dropped columns. Document the already-presumed fact that
eref aliases in relation RTEs are supposed to have entries for dropped
columns; cause the user alias structs to have such entries too, so that
there's always a one-to-one mapping to the underlying physical attnums.
Adjust expandRTE() and related code to handle the case where a column
that is part of a JOIN has been dropped. Generalize expandRTE()'s API
so that it can be used in a couple of places that formerly rolled their
own implementation of the same logic. Fix ruleutils.c to suppress
display of aliases for columns that were dropped since the rule was made.
rather than allowing them only in a few special cases as before. In
particular you can now pass a ROW() construct to a function that accepts
a rowtype parameter. Internal generation of RowExprs fixes a number of
corner cases that used to not work very well, such as referencing the
whole-row result of a JOIN or subquery. This represents a further step in
the work I started a month or so back to make rowtype values into
first-class citizens.
whose conditions might yield NULL. The negated qual to attach to the
original query is properly 'x IS NOT TRUE', not 'NOT x'. This fix
produces correct behavior, but we may be taking a performance hit because
the planner is much stupider about IS NOT TRUE than it is about NOT
clauses. Future TODO: teach prepqual, other parts of planner how to
cope with BooleanTest clauses more effectively.
report from Joel Burton. Turns out that my simple idea of turning the
SELECT into a subquery does not interact well *at all* with the way the
rule rewriter works. Really what we need to make INSERT ... SELECT work
cleanly is to decouple targetlists from rangetables: an INSERT ... SELECT
wants to have two levels of targetlist but only one rangetable. No time
for that for 7.1, however, so I've inserted some ugly hacks to make the
rewriter know explicitly about the structure of INSERT ... SELECT queries.
Ugh :-(
(Don't forget that an alias is required.) Views reimplemented as expanding
to subselect-in-FROM. Grouping, aggregates, DISTINCT in views actually
work now (he says optimistically). No UNION support in subselects/views
yet, but I have some ideas about that. Rule-related permissions checking
moved out of rewriter and into executor.
INITDB REQUIRED!
mark query as having subselects if a subselect was added from a rule
WHERE condition (as opposed to a rule action). Also, fix adjustment
of varlevelsup so that it actually has some prospect of working when
inserting an expression containing a subselect into a subquery.
expression_tree_mutator rather than ad-hoc tree walking code. This shortens
the code materially and fixes a fair number of sins of omission. Also,
change modifyAggrefQual to *not* recurse into subselects, since its mission
is satisfied if it removes aggregate functions from the top level of a
WHERE clause. This cures problems with queries of the form SELECT ...
WHERE x IN (SELECT ... HAVING something-using-an-aggregate), which would
formerly get mucked up by modifyAggrefQual. The routine is still
fundamentally broken, of course, but I don't think there's any way to get
rid of it before we implement subselects in FROM ...
INTERSECT and EXCEPT is available for postgresql-v6.4!
The patch against v6.4 is included at the end of the current text
(in uuencoded form!)
I also included the text of my Master's Thesis. (a postscript
version). I hope that you find something of it useful and would be
happy if parts of it find their way into the PostgreSQL documentation
project (If so, tell me, then I send the sources of the document!)
The contents of the document are:
-) The first chapter might be of less interest as it gives only an
overview on SQL.
-) The second chapter gives a description on much of PostgreSQL's
features (like user defined types etc. and how to use these features)
-) The third chapter starts with an overview of PostgreSQL's internal
structure with focus on the stages a query has to pass (i.e. parser,
planner/optimizer, executor). Then a detailed description of the
implementation of the Having clause and the Intersect/Except logic is
given.
Originally I worked on v6.3.2 but never found time enough to prepare
and post a patch. Now I applied the changes to v6.4 to get Intersect
and Except working with the new version. Chapter 3 of my documentation
deals with the changes against v6.3.2, so keep that in mind when
comparing the parts of the code printed there with the patched sources
of v6.4.
Here are some remarks on the patch. There are some things that have
still to be done but at the moment I don't have time to do them
myself. (I'm doing my military service at the moment) Sorry for that
:-(
-) I used a rewrite technique for the implementation of the Except/Intersect
logic which rewrites the query to a semantically equivalent query before
it is handed to the rewrite system (for views, rules etc.), planner,
executor etc.
-) In v6.3.2 the types of the attributes of two select statements
connected by the UNION keyword had to match 100%. In v6.4 the types
only need to be familiar (i.e. int and float can be mixed). Since this
feature did not exist when I worked on Intersect/Except it
does not work correctly for Except/Intersect queries WHEN USED IN
COMBINATION WITH UNIONS! (i.e. sometimes the wrong type is used for the
resulting table. This is because until now the types of the attributes of
the first select statement have been used for the resulting table.
When Intersects and/or Excepts are used in combination with Unions it
might happen, that the first select statement of the original query
appears at another position in the query which will be executed. The reason
for this is the technique used for the implementation of
Except/Intersect which does a query rewrite!)
NOTE: It is NOT broken for pure UNION queries and pure INTERSECT/EXCEPT
queries!!!
-) I had to add the field intersect_clause to some data structures
but did not find time to implement printfuncs for the new field.
This does NOT break the debug modes but when an Except/Intersect
is used the query debug output will be the already rewritten query.
-) Massive changes to the grammar rules for SELECT and INSERT statements
have been necessary (see comments in gram.y and documentation for
deatails) in order to be able to use mixed queries like
(SELECT ... UNION (SELECT ... EXCEPT SELECT)) INTERSECT SELECT...;
-) When using UNION/EXCEPT/INTERSECT you will get:
NOTICE: equal: "Don't know if nodes of type xxx are equal".
I did not have time to add comparsion support for all the needed nodes,
but the default behaviour of the function equal met my requirements.
I did not dare to supress this message!
That's the reason why the regression test for union will fail: These
messages are also included in the union.out file!
-) Somebody of you changed the union_planner() function for v6.4
(I copied the targetlist to new_tlist and that was removed and
replaced by a cleanup of the original targetlist). These chnages
violated some having queries executed against views so I changed
it back again. I did not have time to examine the differences between the
two versions but now it works :-)
If you want to find out, try the file queries/view_having.sql on
both versions and compare the results . Two queries won't produce a
correct result with your version.
regards
Stefan
Fixes a bug in the rule system that caused a crashing
backend when a join-view with calculated column is used
in subselect.
Modifies EXPLAIN to explain rewritten queries instead of
the plain SeqScan on a view. Rules can produce very deep
MORE
Jan.
now. Here some tested features, (examples included in the patch):
1.1) Subselects in the having clause 1.2) Double nested subselects
1.3) Subselects used in the where clause and in the having clause
simultaneously 1.4) Union Selects using having 1.5) Indexes
on the base relations are used correctly 1.6) Unallowed Queries
are prevented (e.g. qualifications in the
having clause that belong to the where clause) 1.7) Insert
into as select
2) Queries using the having clause on view relations also work
but there are some restrictions:
2.1) Create View as Select ... Having ...; using base tables in
the select 2.1.1) The Query rewrite system:
2.1.2) Why are only simple queries allowed against a view from 2.1)
? 2.2) Select ... from testview1, testview2, ... having...; 3) Bug
in ExecMergeJoin ??
Regards Stefan
