Commit Graph

4 Commits

Author SHA1 Message Date
Tom Lane a163c006ca Tweak targetlist-SRF tests.
Add a test case showing that we don't support SRFs in window-function
arguments.  Remove a duplicate test case for SRFs in aggregate arguments.
2016-09-14 14:30:40 -04:00
Tom Lane a4c35ea1c2 Improve parser's and planner's handling of set-returning functions.
Teach the parser to reject misplaced set-returning functions during parse
analysis using p_expr_kind, in much the same way as we do for aggregates
and window functions (cf commit eaccfded9).  While this isn't complete
(it misses nesting-based restrictions), it's much better than the previous
error reporting for such cases, and it allows elimination of assorted
ad-hoc expression_returns_set() error checks.  We could add nesting checks
later if it seems important to catch all cases at parse time.

There is one case the parser will now throw error for although previous
versions allowed it, which is SRFs in the tlist of an UPDATE.  That never
behaved sensibly (since it's ill-defined which generated row should be
used to perform the update) and it's hard to see why it should not be
treated as an error.  It's a release-note-worthy change though.

Also, add a new Query field hasTargetSRFs reporting whether there are
any SRFs in the targetlist (including GROUP BY/ORDER BY expressions).
The parser can now set that basically for free during parse analysis,
and we can use it in a number of places to avoid expression_returns_set
searches.  (There will be more such checks soon.)  In some places, this
allows decontorting the logic since it's no longer expensive to check for
SRFs in the tlist --- so I made the checks parallel to the handling of
hasAggs/hasWindowFuncs wherever it seemed appropriate.

catversion bump because adding a Query field changes stored rules.

Andres Freund and Tom Lane

Discussion: <24639.1473782855@sss.pgh.pa.us>
2016-09-13 13:54:24 -04:00
Andres Freund 9f478b4f19 Address portability issues in bfe16d1a5 test output. 2016-09-12 18:15:10 -07:00
Andres Freund bfe16d1a5d Add more tests for targetlist SRFs.
We're considering changing the implementation of targetlist SRFs
considerably, and a lot of the current behaviour isn't tested in our
regression tests. Thus it seems useful to increase coverage to avoid
accidental behaviour changes.

It's quite possible that some of the plans here will require adjustments
to avoid falling afoul of ordering differences (e.g. hashed group
bys). The buildfarm will tell us.

Reviewed-By: Tom Lane
Discussion: <20160827214829.zo2dfb5jaikii5nw@alap3.anarazel.de>
2016-09-12 17:27:47 -07:00