the "cteParam" as a proxy for the possibility that the underlying CTE plan
depends on outer-level variables or Params, but that doesn't work very well
because it sometimes causes calling subqueries to be treated as SubPlans when
they could be InitPlans. This is inefficient and also causes the outright
failure exhibited in bug #4902. Instead, leave the cteParam out of it and
copy the underlying CTE plan's extParams directly. Per bug #4902 from
Marko Tiikkaja.
TupleTableSlots. We have functions for retrieving a minimal tuple from a slot
after storing a regular tuple in it, or vice versa; but these were implemented
by converting the internal storage from one format to the other. The problem
with that is it invalidates any pass-by-reference Datums that were already
fetched from the slot, since they'll be pointing into the just-freed version
of the tuple. The known problem cases involve fetching both a whole-row
variable and a pass-by-reference value from a slot that is fed from a
tuplestore or tuplesort object. The added regression tests illustrate some
simple cases, but there may be other failure scenarios traceable to the same
bug. Note that the added tests probably only fail on unpatched code if it's
built with --enable-cassert; otherwise the bug leads to fetching from freed
memory, which will not have been overwritten without additional conditions.
Fix by allowing a slot to contain both formats simultaneously; which turns out
not to complicate the logic much at all, if anything it seems less contorted
than before.
Back-patch to 8.2, where minimal tuples were introduced.
depth-first search order. Upon close reading of SQL:2008, it seems that the
spec's SEARCH DEPTH FIRST and SEARCH BREADTH FIRST options do not actually
guarantee any particular result order: what they do is provide a constructed
column that the user can then sort on in the outer query. So this is actually
just as much functionality ...
pseudo-type record[] to represent arrays of possibly-anonymous composite
types. Since composite datums carry their own type identification, no
extra knowledge is needed at the array level.
The main reason for doing this right now is that it is necessary to support
the general case of detection of cycles in recursive queries: if you need to
compare more than one column to detect a cycle, you need to compare a ROW()
to an array built from ROW()s, at least if you want to do it as the spec
suggests. Add some documentation and regression tests concerning the cycle
detection issue.
RecursiveUnion to which it refers. It turns out that we can just postpone the
relevant initialization steps until the first exec call for the node, by which
time the ancestor node must surely be initialized. Per report from Greg Stark.
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.
recursive CTE that we're still in progress of analyzing. Add a similar guard
to the similar code in expandRecordVariable(), and tweak regression tests to
cover this case. Per report from Dickson S. Guedes.
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