Making this operation look like a utility statement seems generally a good
idea, and particularly so in light of the desire to provide command
triggers for utility statements. The original choice of representing it as
SELECT with an IntoClause appendage had metastasized into rather a lot of
places, unfortunately, so that this patch is a great deal more complicated
than one might at first expect.
In particular, keeping EXPLAIN working for SELECT INTO and CREATE TABLE AS
subcommands required restructuring some EXPLAIN-related APIs. Add-on code
that calls ExplainOnePlan or ExplainOneUtility, or uses
ExplainOneQuery_hook, will need adjustment.
Also, the cases PREPARE ... SELECT INTO and CREATE RULE ... SELECT INTO,
which formerly were accepted though undocumented, are no longer accepted.
The PREPARE case can be replaced with use of CREATE TABLE AS EXECUTE.
The CREATE RULE case doesn't seem to have much real-world use (since the
rule would work only once before failing with "table already exists"),
so we'll not bother with that one.
Both SELECT INTO and CREATE TABLE AS still return a command tag of
"SELECT nnnn". There was some discussion of returning "CREATE TABLE nnnn",
but for the moment backwards compatibility wins the day.
Andres Freund and Tom Lane
This patch is almost entirely cosmetic --- mostly cleaning up a lot of
neglected comments, and fixing code layout problems in places where the
patch made lines too long and then pgindent did weird things with that.
I did find a bug-of-omission in equalTupleDescs().
All expression nodes now have an explicit output-collation field, unless
they are known to only return a noncollatable data type (such as boolean
or record). Also, nodes that can invoke collation-aware functions store
a separate field that is the collation value to pass to the function.
This avoids confusion that arises when a function has collatable inputs
and noncollatable output type, or vice versa.
Also, replace the parser's on-the-fly collation assignment method with
a post-pass over the completed expression tree. This allows us to use
a more complex (and hopefully more nearly spec-compliant) assignment
rule without paying for it in extra storage in every expression node.
Fix assorted bugs in the planner's handling of collations by making
collation one of the defining properties of an EquivalenceClass and
by converting CollateExprs into discardable RelabelType nodes during
expression preprocessing.
This patch implements data-modifying WITH queries according to the
semantics that the updates all happen with the same command counter value,
and in an unspecified order. Therefore one WITH clause can't see the
effects of another, nor can the outer query see the effects other than
through the RETURNING values. And attempts to do conflicting updates will
have unpredictable results. We'll need to document all that.
This commit just fixes the code; documentation updates are waiting on
author.
Marko Tiikkaja and Hitoshi Harada
This adds collation support for columns and domains, a COLLATE clause
to override it per expression, and B-tree index support.
Peter Eisentraut
reviewed by Pavel Stehule, Itagaki Takahiro, Robert Haas, Noah Misch
for example in
WITH w AS (SELECT * FROM foo) SELECT * FROM w, bar ... FOR UPDATE
the FOR UPDATE will now affect bar but not foo. This is more useful and
consistent than the original 8.4 behavior, which tried to propagate FOR UPDATE
into the WITH query but always failed due to assorted implementation
restrictions. Even though we are in process of removing those restrictions,
it seems correct on philosophical grounds to not let the outer query's
FOR UPDATE affect the WITH query.
In passing, fix isLockedRel which frequently got things wrong in
nested-subquery cases: "FOR UPDATE OF foo" applies to an alias foo in the
current query level, not subqueries. This has been broken for a long time,
but it doesn't seem worth back-patching further than 8.4 because the actual
consequences are minimal. At worst the parser would sometimes get
RowShareLock on a relation when it should be AccessShareLock or vice versa.
That would only make a difference if someone were using ExclusiveLock
concurrently, which no standard operation does, and anyway FOR UPDATE
doesn't result in visible changes so it's not clear that the someone would
notice any problem. Between that and the fact that FOR UPDATE barely works
with subqueries at all in existing releases, I'm not excited about worrying
about it.
code was already okay with this, but the hack that obtained the output
column types of a recursive union in advance of doing real parse analysis
of the recursive union forgot to handle the case where there was an inner
WITH clause available to the non-recursive term. Best fix seems to be to
refactor so that we don't need the "throwaway" parse analysis step at all.
Instead, teach the transformSetOperationStmt code to set up the CTE's output
column information after it's processed the non-recursive term normally.
Per report from David Fetter.
of referencing a WITH item that's not yet in scope according to the SQL
spec's semantics. This seems to be an easy error to make, and the bare
"relation doesn't exist" message doesn't lead one's mind in the correct
direction to fix it.
implementation uses an in-memory hash table, so it will poop out for very
large recursive results ... but the performance characteristics of a
sort-based implementation would be pretty unpleasant too.
There are some unimplemented aspects: recursive queries must use UNION ALL
(should allow UNION too), and we don't have SEARCH or CYCLE clauses.
These might or might not get done for 8.4, but even without them it's a
pretty useful feature.
There are also a couple of small loose ends and definitional quibbles,
which I'll send a memo about to pgsql-hackers shortly. But let's land
the patch now so we can get on with other development.
Yoshiyuki Asaba, with lots of help from Tatsuo Ishii and Tom Lane
Tom Lane
Bruce Momjian
Peter Eisentraut
Magnus Hagander