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.
parameter to allow it to be forced off for comparison purposes.
Add ORDER BY clauses to a bunch of regression test queries that will
otherwise produce randomly-ordered output in the new regime.
comments on one of the optimizer functions a lot more
clear, adds a summary of the recent KSQO discussion to the
comments in the code, adds regression tests for the bug with
sequence state Tom fixed recently and another reg. test, and
removes some PostQuel legacy stuff: ExecAppend -> ExecInsert,
ExecRetrieve -> ExecSelect, etc.
Error messages remain unchanged until a vote.
Neil Conway
comments on one of the optimizer functions a lot more
clear, adds a summary of the recent KSQO discussion to the
comments in the code, adds regression tests for the bug with
sequence state Tom fixed recently and another reg. test, and
removes some PostQuel legacy stuff: ExecAppend -> ExecInsert,
ExecRetrieve -> ExecSelect, etc. This was changed because the
elog() messages from this routine are user-visible, so we
should be using the SQL terms.
Neil Conway
>
> Please apply this HAVING regression patch.
> > My bad. It is caused by a known bug having to do with GROUP BY.
It ain't$
> > nothing to do with HAVING. For some reason the bug went away for a
while, $
> > script. It must have, because that is how I created the expected
file. :(
> >
> > A patch to the regression will be forthcoming.
>
Tom Lane
Bruce Momjian
Thomas G. Lockhart