Commit 77ec5affb added an assertion to enforce_generic_type_consistency
that boils down to "if the function result is polymorphic, there must be
at least one polymorphic argument". This should be true for user-created
functions, but there are built-in functions for which it's not true, as
pointed out by Jaime Casanova. Hence, go back to the old behavior of
leaving the return type alone. There's only a limited amount of stuff
you can do with such a function result, but it does work to some extent;
add some regression test cases to ensure we don't break that again.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAJGNTeMbhtsCUZgJJ8h8XxAJbK7U2ipsX8wkHRtZRz-NieT8RA@mail.gmail.com
This patch adds the pseudo-types anycompatible, anycompatiblearray,
anycompatiblenonarray, and anycompatiblerange. They work much like
anyelement, anyarray, anynonarray, and anyrange respectively, except
that the actual input values need not match precisely in type.
Instead, if we can find a common supertype (using the same rules
as for UNION/CASE type resolution), then the parser automatically
promotes the input values to that type. For example,
"myfunc(anycompatible, anycompatible)" can match a call with one
integer and one bigint argument, with the integer automatically
promoted to bigint. With anyelement in the definition, the user
would have had to cast the integer explicitly.
The new types also provide a second, independent set of type variables
for function matching; thus with "myfunc(anyelement, anyelement,
anycompatible) returns anycompatible" the first two arguments are
constrained to be the same type, but the third can be some other
type, and the result has the type of the third argument. The need
for more than one set of type variables was foreseen back when we
first invented the polymorphic types, but we never did anything
about it.
Pavel Stehule, revised a bit by me
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAFj8pRDna7VqNi8gR+Tt2Ktmz0cq5G93guc3Sbn_NVPLdXAkqA@mail.gmail.com
It is possible to reach check_sql_fn_retval() with an unresolved
polymorphic rettype, resulting in an assertion failure as demonstrated
by one of the added test cases. However, the code following that
throws what seems an acceptable error message, so just remove the
Assert and adjust commentary.
While here, I thought it'd be a good idea to provide some parallel
tests of SQL-function and PL/pgSQL-function polymorphism behavior.
Some of these cases are perhaps duplicative of tests elsewhere,
but we hadn't any organized coverage of the topic AFAICS.
Although that assertion's been wrong all along, it won't have any
effect in production builds, so I'm not bothering to back-patch.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/21569.1584314271@sss.pgh.pa.us
Commits c6b3c939b (which fixed the precedence of >=, <=, <> operators)
and 865f14a2d (which added support for the standard => notation for
named arguments) created a class of lexer tokens which look like
multi-character operators but which have their own token IDs distinct
from Op. However, longest-match rules meant that following any of
these tokens with another operator character, as in (1<>-1), would
cause them to be incorrectly returned as Op.
The error here isn't immediately obvious, because the parser would
usually still find the correct operator via the Op token, but there
were more subtle problems:
1. If immediately followed by a comment or +-, >= <= <> would be given
the old precedence of Op rather than the correct new precedence;
2. If followed by a comment, != would be returned as Op rather than as
NOT_EQUAL, causing it not to be found at all;
3. If followed by a comment or +-, the => token for named arguments
would be lexed as Op, causing the argument to be mis-parsed as a
simple expression, usually causing an error.
Fix by explicitly checking for the operators in the {operator} code
block in addition to all the existing special cases there.
Backpatch to 9.5 where the problem was introduced.
Analysis and patch by me; review by Tom Lane.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/87va851ppl.fsf@news-spur.riddles.org.uk
Many of the objects we create during the regression tests are put in the
public schema, so that using the same names in different regression tests
creates a hazard of test failures if any two such scripts run concurrently.
This patch cleans up a bunch of latent hazards of that sort, as well as two
live hazards.
The current situation in this regard is far worse than it was a year or two
back, because practically all of the partitioning-related test cases have
reused table names with enthusiasm. I despaired of cleaning up that mess
within the five most-affected tests (create_table, alter_table, insert,
update, inherit); fortunately those don't run concurrently.
Other than partitioning problems, most of the issues boil down to using
names like "foo", "bar", "tmp", etc, without thought for the fact that
other test scripts might use similar names concurrently. I've made an
effort to make all such names more specific.
One of the live hazards was that commit 7421f4b8 caused with.sql to
create a table named "test", conflicting with a similarly-named table
in alter_table.sql; this was exposed in the buildfarm recently.
The other one was that join.sql and transactions.sql both create tables
named "foo" and "bar"; but join.sql's uses of those names date back
only to December or so.
Since commit 7421f4b8 was back-patched to v10, back-patch a minimal
fix for that problem. The rest of this is just future-proofing.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/4627.1521070268@sss.pgh.pa.us
The transfunction was told that its first argument and result were
of the window function output type, not the aggregate state type.
This'd only matter if the transfunction consults get_fn_expr_argtype,
which typically only polymorphic functions would do.
Although we have several regression tests around polymorphic aggs,
none of them detected this mistake --- in fact, they still didn't
fail when I injected the same mistake into nodeAgg.c. So add some
more tests covering both plain agg and window-function-agg cases.
Per report from Sebastian Luque. Back-patch to 9.6 where the error
was introduced (by sloppy refactoring in commit 804163bc2, looks like).
Report: <87int2qkat.fsf@gmail.com>
SQL has standardized on => as the use of to specify named parameters,
and we've wanted for many years to support the same syntax ourselves,
but this has been complicated by the possible use of => as an operator
name. In PostgreSQL 9.0, we began emitting a warning when an operator
named => was defined, and in PostgreSQL 9.2, we stopped shipping a
=>(text, text) operator as part of hstore. By the time the next major
version of PostgreSQL is released, => will have been deprecated for a
full five years, so hopefully there won't be too many people still
relying on it. We continue to support := for compatibility with
previous PostgreSQL releases.
Pavel Stehule, reviewed by Petr Jelinek, with a few documentation
tweaks by me.
Since record[] uses array_in, it needs to have its element type passed
as typioparam. In HEAD and 9.1, this fix essentially reverts commit
9bc933b212, which was a hack that is no
longer needed since domains don't set their typelem anymore. Before
that, adjust the logic so that only domains are excluded from being
treated like arrays, rather than assuming that only base types should
be included. Add a regression test to demonstrate the need for this.
Per report from Maxim Boguk.
Back-patch to 8.4, where type record[] was added.
We have a test that verifies that max(anyarray) will cope if the array
column elements aren't all the same array type. However, it's now possible
for that to produce a collation-related error message instead of the
expected one, if the first two column elements happen to be of the same
type and it's one that expects to be given collation info. Tweak the test
to ensure this doesn't happen. Per buildfarm member pika.
"val AS name" to "name := val", as per recent discussion.
This patch catches everything in the original named-parameters patch,
but I'm not certain that no other dependencies snuck in later (grepping
the source tree for all uses of AS soon proved unworkable).
In passing I note that we've dropped the ball at least once on keeping
ecpg's lexer (as opposed to parser) in sync with the backend. It would
be a good idea to go through all of pgc.l and see if it's in sync now.
I didn't attempt that at the moment.
actual argument type of ANYARRAY to match an argument declared ANYARRAY,
so long as ANYELEMENT etc aren't used. I had overlooked the fact that this
is a possible case while fixing bug #3852; but it is possible because
pg_statistic contains columns declared ANYARRAY. Per gripe from Corey Horton.
so long as all the trailing arguments are of the same (non-array) type.
The function receives them as a single array argument (which is why they
have to all be the same type).
It might be useful to extend this facility to aggregates, but this patch
doesn't do that.
This patch imposes a noticeable slowdown on function lookup --- a follow-on
patch will fix that by adding a redundant column to pg_proc.
Pavel Stehule
checking of argument compatibility right; although the problem is only exposed
with multiple-input aggregates in which some arguments are polymorphic and
some are not. Per bug #3852 from Sokolov Yura.
wrong thing when inlining polymorphic SQL functions, because it was using the
function's declared return type where it should have used the actual result
type of the current call. In 8.1 and 8.2 this causes obvious failures even if
you don't have assertions turned on; in 8.0 and 7.4 it would only be a problem
if the inlined expression were used as an input to a function that did
run-time type determination on its inputs. Add a regression test, since this
is evidently an under-tested area.
the opportunity to treat COUNT(*) as a zero-argument aggregate instead
of the old hack that equated it to COUNT(1); this is materially cleaner
(no more weird ANYOID cases) and ought to be at least a tiny bit faster.
Original patch by Sergey Koposov; review, documentation, simple regression
tests, pg_dump and psql support by moi.
It also works to create a non-polymorphic aggregate from polymorphic
functions, should you want to do that. Regression test added, docs still
lacking. By Joe Conway, with some kibitzing from Tom Lane.
Tom Lane
Andrew Gierth
Robert Haas
Peter Eisentraut