This allows underscores to be used in integer and numeric literals,
and their corresponding type input functions, for visual grouping.
For example:
1_500_000_000
3.14159_26535_89793
0xffff_ffff
0b_1001_0001
A single underscore is allowed between any 2 digits, or immediately
after the base prefix indicator of non-decimal integers, per SQL:202x
draft.
Peter Eisentraut and Dean Rasheed
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/84aae844-dc55-a4be-86d9-4f0fa405cc97%40enterprisedb.com
This enhances the numeric type input function, adding support for
hexadecimal, octal, and binary integers of any size, up to the limits
of the numeric type.
Since 6fcda9aba8, such non-decimal integers have been accepted by the
parser as integer literals and passed through to numeric_in(). This
commit gives numeric_in() the ability to handle them.
While at it, simplify the handling of NaN and infinities, reducing the
number of calls to pg_strncasecmp(), and arrange for pg_strncasecmp()
to not be called at all for regular numbers. This gives a significant
performance improvement for decimal inputs, more than offsetting the
small performance hit of checking for non-decimal input.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAEZATCV8XShnmT9HZy25C%2Bo78CVOFmUN5EM9FRAZ5xvYTggPMg%40mail.gmail.com
Add support for hexadecimal, octal, and binary integer literals:
0x42F
0o273
0b100101
per SQL:202x draft.
This adds support in the lexer as well as in the integer type input
functions.
Reviewed-by: John Naylor <john.naylor@enterprisedb.com>
Reviewed-by: Zhihong Yu <zyu@yugabyte.com>
Reviewed-by: David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Dean Rasheed <dean.a.rasheed@gmail.com>
Discussion: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/b239564c-cad0-b23e-c57e-166d883cb97d@enterprisedb.com
After this, the PostgreSQL lexers no longer accept numeric literals
with trailing non-digits, such as 123abc, which would be scanned as
two tokens: 123 and abc. This is undocumented and surprising, and it
might also interfere with some extended numeric literal syntax being
contemplated for the future.
Reviewed-by: John Naylor <john.naylor@enterprisedb.com>
Discussion: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/b239564c-cad0-b23e-c57e-166d883cb97d@enterprisedb.com
PostgreSQL currently accepts numeric literals with trailing
non-digits, such as 123abc where the abc is treated as the next token.
This may be a bit surprising. This commit adds test cases for this;
subsequent commits intend to change this behavior.
Reviewed-by: John Naylor <john.naylor@enterprisedb.com>
Discussion: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/b239564c-cad0-b23e-c57e-166d883cb97d@enterprisedb.com
Many older tests where written in a style like
SELECT '' AS two, i.* FROM INT2_TBL
where the first column indicated the number of expected result rows.
This has gotten increasingly out of date, as the test data fixtures
have expanded, so a lot of these were wrong and misleading. Moreover,
this style isn't really necessary, since the psql output already shows
the number of result rows.
To clean this up, remove all those extra columns.
Discussion: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/1a25312b-2686-380d-3c67-7a69094a999f%40enterprisedb.com
unary minus operators. We weren't attempting to prevent minus zero anywhere
else; in view of our gradual trend to make the float datatypes more IEEE
standard compliant, we should allow minus zero here rather than disallow it
elsewhere.
We don't, however, expect that all platforms will produce minus zero, so
we need to adjust the one affected regression test to allow both results.
Per discussion of bug #4660.
(In passing, clean up a couple other minor infelicities in float.c.)
as methods for implementing the DISTINCT step. This eliminates the former
performance gap between DISTINCT and GROUP BY, and also makes it possible
to do SELECT DISTINCT on datatypes that only support hashing not sorting.
SELECT DISTINCT ON is still always implemented by sorting; it would take
executor changes to support hashing that, and it's not clear it's worth
the trouble.
This is a release-note-worthy incompatibility from previous PG versions,
since SELECT DISTINCT can no longer be counted on to deliver sorted output
without explicitly saying ORDER BY. (Anyone who can't cope with that
can consider turning off enable_hashagg.)
Several regression test queries needed to have ORDER BY added to preserve
stable output order. I fixed the ones that manifested here, but there
might be some other cases that show up on other platforms.
after trying to resolve the item as an input-column name. This allows us
to be compliant with the SQL92 spec for queries that fall within the spec,
while still accepting the same out-of-spec queries as 6.5 did. You'll only
lose if there is an output column name that is the same as an input
column name, but doesn't refer to the same value. 7.0 will interpret
such a GROUP BY spec differently than 6.5 did. No way around that, because
6.5 was clearly not spec compliant.
interpret a column name as an output column alias (targetlist AS name),
ather than a real column name as it ought to. According to the spec,
only ORDER BY should look at output column names. I left in GROUP BY's
willingness to use an output column number ('GROUP BY 2'), even though
this is also contrary to the spec --- again, only ORDER BY is supposed
to accept that. But there is no possible reason to want to GROUP BY
an integer constant, so keeping this old behavior won't break any
SQL-compliant queries. DISTINCT ON will behave the same as GROUP BY.
Change numerology regress test, which depended on the incorrect
behavior.
Dean Rasheed
Peter Eisentraut
Tom Lane
Thomas G. Lockhart