rather than coredumping (as prior 7.1 code did) or silently dropping the
condition (as 7.0 did). This is annoying but there doesn't seem to be
any good way to fix it, short of a major querytree restructuring.
work where we can (given that the executor only handles it at top level)
and generate an error where we can't. Note that while the parser has
been allowing views to say SELECT FOR UPDATE for a few weeks now, that
hasn't actually worked until just now.
report from Joel Burton. Turns out that my simple idea of turning the
SELECT into a subquery does not interact well *at all* with the way the
rule rewriter works. Really what we need to make INSERT ... SELECT work
cleanly is to decouple targetlists from rangetables: an INSERT ... SELECT
wants to have two levels of targetlist but only one rangetable. No time
for that for 7.1, however, so I've inserted some ugly hacks to make the
rewriter know explicitly about the structure of INSERT ... SELECT queries.
Ugh :-(
maintained for each cache entry. A cache entry will not be freed until
the matching ReleaseSysCache call has been executed. This eliminates
worries about cache entries getting dropped while still in use. See
my posting to pg-hackers of even date for more info.
SQL92 semantics, including support for ALL option. All three can be used
in subqueries and views. DISTINCT and ORDER BY work now in views, too.
This rewrite fixes many problems with cross-datatype UNIONs and INSERT/SELECT
where the SELECT yields different datatypes than the INSERT needs. I did
that by making UNION subqueries and SELECT in INSERT be treated like
subselects-in-FROM, thereby allowing an extra level of targetlist where the
datatype conversions can be inserted safely.
INITDB NEEDED!
(Don't forget that an alias is required.) Views reimplemented as expanding
to subselect-in-FROM. Grouping, aggregates, DISTINCT in views actually
work now (he says optimistically). No UNION support in subselects/views
yet, but I have some ideas about that. Rule-related permissions checking
moved out of rewriter and into executor.
INITDB REQUIRED!
mark query as having subselects if a subselect was added from a rule
WHERE condition (as opposed to a rule action). Also, fix adjustment
of varlevelsup so that it actually has some prospect of working when
inserting an expression containing a subselect into a subquery.
SELECT DISTINCT ON (expr [, expr ...]) targetlist ...
and there is a check to make sure that the user didn't specify an ORDER BY
that's incompatible with the DISTINCT operation.
Reimplement nodeUnique and nodeGroup to use the proper datatype-specific
equality function for each column being compared --- they used to do
bitwise comparisons or convert the data to text strings and strcmp().
(To add insult to injury, they'd look up the conversion functions once
for each tuple...) Parse/plan representation of DISTINCT is now a list
of SortClause nodes.
initdb forced by querytree change...
expression_tree_mutator rather than ad-hoc tree walking code. This shortens
the code materially and fixes a fair number of sins of omission. Also,
change modifyAggrefQual to *not* recurse into subselects, since its mission
is satisfied if it removes aggregate functions from the top level of a
WHERE clause. This cures problems with queries of the form SELECT ...
WHERE x IN (SELECT ... HAVING something-using-an-aggregate), which would
formerly get mucked up by modifyAggrefQual. The routine is still
fundamentally broken, of course, but I don't think there's any way to get
rid of it before we implement subselects in FROM ...
documented intepretation of the lefthand and oper fields. Fix a number of
obscure problems while at it --- for example, the old code failed if the parser
decided to insert a type-coercion function just below the operator of a
SubLink.
CAUTION: this will break stored rules that contain subplans. You may
need to initdb.
sort order down into planner, instead of handling it only at the very top
level of the planner. This fixes many things. An explicit sort is now
avoided if there is a cheaper alternative (typically an indexscan) not
only for ORDER BY, but also for the internal sort of GROUP BY. It works
even when there is no other reason (such as a WHERE condition) to consider
the indexscan. It works for indexes on functions. It works for indexes
on functions, backwards. It's just so cool...
CAUTION: I have changed the representation of SortClause nodes, therefore
THIS UPDATE BREAKS STORED RULES. You will need to initdb.
rule system semantics by having Var nodes referenced across multiple
parsetrees when rules split them.
Added more tests to the rules regression test.
The code in question resulted from v6.3 based development and was
a little careless applied to the v6.5 source tree.
Jan
INTERSECT and EXCEPT is available for postgresql-v6.4!
The patch against v6.4 is included at the end of the current text
(in uuencoded form!)
I also included the text of my Master's Thesis. (a postscript
version). I hope that you find something of it useful and would be
happy if parts of it find their way into the PostgreSQL documentation
project (If so, tell me, then I send the sources of the document!)
The contents of the document are:
-) The first chapter might be of less interest as it gives only an
overview on SQL.
-) The second chapter gives a description on much of PostgreSQL's
features (like user defined types etc. and how to use these features)
-) The third chapter starts with an overview of PostgreSQL's internal
structure with focus on the stages a query has to pass (i.e. parser,
planner/optimizer, executor). Then a detailed description of the
implementation of the Having clause and the Intersect/Except logic is
given.
Originally I worked on v6.3.2 but never found time enough to prepare
and post a patch. Now I applied the changes to v6.4 to get Intersect
and Except working with the new version. Chapter 3 of my documentation
deals with the changes against v6.3.2, so keep that in mind when
comparing the parts of the code printed there with the patched sources
of v6.4.
Here are some remarks on the patch. There are some things that have
still to be done but at the moment I don't have time to do them
myself. (I'm doing my military service at the moment) Sorry for that
:-(
-) I used a rewrite technique for the implementation of the Except/Intersect
logic which rewrites the query to a semantically equivalent query before
it is handed to the rewrite system (for views, rules etc.), planner,
executor etc.
-) In v6.3.2 the types of the attributes of two select statements
connected by the UNION keyword had to match 100%. In v6.4 the types
only need to be familiar (i.e. int and float can be mixed). Since this
feature did not exist when I worked on Intersect/Except it
does not work correctly for Except/Intersect queries WHEN USED IN
COMBINATION WITH UNIONS! (i.e. sometimes the wrong type is used for the
resulting table. This is because until now the types of the attributes of
the first select statement have been used for the resulting table.
When Intersects and/or Excepts are used in combination with Unions it
might happen, that the first select statement of the original query
appears at another position in the query which will be executed. The reason
for this is the technique used for the implementation of
Except/Intersect which does a query rewrite!)
NOTE: It is NOT broken for pure UNION queries and pure INTERSECT/EXCEPT
queries!!!
-) I had to add the field intersect_clause to some data structures
but did not find time to implement printfuncs for the new field.
This does NOT break the debug modes but when an Except/Intersect
is used the query debug output will be the already rewritten query.
-) Massive changes to the grammar rules for SELECT and INSERT statements
have been necessary (see comments in gram.y and documentation for
deatails) in order to be able to use mixed queries like
(SELECT ... UNION (SELECT ... EXCEPT SELECT)) INTERSECT SELECT...;
-) When using UNION/EXCEPT/INTERSECT you will get:
NOTICE: equal: "Don't know if nodes of type xxx are equal".
I did not have time to add comparsion support for all the needed nodes,
but the default behaviour of the function equal met my requirements.
I did not dare to supress this message!
That's the reason why the regression test for union will fail: These
messages are also included in the union.out file!
-) Somebody of you changed the union_planner() function for v6.4
(I copied the targetlist to new_tlist and that was removed and
replaced by a cleanup of the original targetlist). These chnages
violated some having queries executed against views so I changed
it back again. I did not have time to examine the differences between the
two versions but now it works :-)
If you want to find out, try the file queries/view_having.sql on
both versions and compare the results . Two queries won't produce a
correct result with your version.
regards
Stefan
Fixes a bug in the rule system that caused a crashing
backend when a join-view with calculated column is used
in subselect.
Modifies EXPLAIN to explain rewritten queries instead of
the plain SeqScan on a view. Rules can produce very deep
MORE
Jan.
for against a just updated CVS tree. It contains
Partial new rewrite system that handles subselects, view
aggregate columns, insert into select from view, updates
with set col = view-value and select rules restriction to
view definition.
Updates for rule/view backparsing utility functions to
handle subselects correct.
New system views pg_tables and pg_indexes (where you can
see the complete index definition in the latter one).
Enabling array references on query parameters.
Bugfix for functional index.
Little changes to system views pg_rules and pg_views.
The rule system isn't a release-stopper any longer.
But another stopper is that I don't know if the latest
changes to PL/pgSQL (not already in CVS) made it compile on
AIX. Still wait for some response from Dave.
Jan
now. Here some tested features, (examples included in the patch):
1.1) Subselects in the having clause 1.2) Double nested subselects
1.3) Subselects used in the where clause and in the having clause
simultaneously 1.4) Union Selects using having 1.5) Indexes
on the base relations are used correctly 1.6) Unallowed Queries
are prevented (e.g. qualifications in the
having clause that belong to the where clause) 1.7) Insert
into as select
2) Queries using the having clause on view relations also work
but there are some restrictions:
2.1) Create View as Select ... Having ...; using base tables in
the select 2.1.1) The Query rewrite system:
2.1.2) Why are only simple queries allowed against a view from 2.1)
? 2.2) Select ... from testview1, testview2, ... having...; 3) Bug
in ExecMergeJoin ??
Regards Stefan
Pass List* of Aggregs into executor, and create needed array there.
No longer need to double-processs Aggregs with second copy in Query.
Fix crash when doing:
select sum(x+1) from test where 1 > 0;
