mentioned in FROM but not elsewhere in the query: such tables should be
joined over anyway. Aside from being more standards-compliant, this allows
removal of some very ugly hacks for COUNT(*) processing. Also, allow
HAVING clause without aggregate functions, since SQL does. Clean up
CREATE RULE statement-list syntax the same way Bruce just fixed the
main stmtmulti production.
CAUTION: addition of a field to RangeTblEntry nodes breaks stored rules;
you will have to initdb if you have any rules.
expressions in CREATE TABLE. There is no longer an emasculated expression
syntax for these things; it's full a_expr for constraints, and b_expr
for defaults (unfortunately the fact that NOT NULL is a part of the
column constraint syntax causes a shift/reduce conflict if you try a_expr.
Oh well --- at least parenthesized boolean expressions work now). Also,
stored expression for a column default is not pre-coerced to the column
type; we rely on transformInsertStatement to do that when the default is
actually used. This means "f1 datetime default 'now'" behaves the way
people usually expect it to.
BTW, all the support code is now there to implement ALTER TABLE ADD
CONSTRAINT and ALTER TABLE ADD COLUMN with a default value. I didn't
actually teach ALTER TABLE to call it, but it wouldn't be much work.
where you state a format and arguments. the old behavior required
each appendStringInfo to have to have a sprintf() before it if any
formatting was required.
Also shortened several instances where there were multiple appendStringInfo()
calls in a row, doing nothing more then adding one more word to the String,
instead of doing them all in one call.
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.
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