whose conditions might yield NULL. The negated qual to attach to the
original query is properly 'x IS NOT TRUE', not 'NOT x'. This fix
produces correct behavior, but we may be taking a performance hit because
the planner is much stupider about IS NOT TRUE than it is about NOT
clauses. Future TODO: teach prepqual, other parts of planner how to
cope with BooleanTest clauses more effectively.
COPY x (a,d,c,b) from stdin;
COPY x (a,c) to stdout;
as well as the corresponding changes to pg_dump to use the new
functionality. This functionality is not available when using
the BINARY option. If a column is not specified in the COPY FROM
statement, its default values will be used.
In addition to this functionality, I tweaked a couple of the
error messages emitted by the new COPY <options> checks.
Brent Verner
pg_relcheck is gone; CHECK, UNIQUE, PRIMARY KEY, and FOREIGN KEY
constraints all have real live entries in pg_constraint. pg_depend
exists, and RESTRICT/CASCADE options work on most kinds of DROP;
however, pg_depend is not yet very well populated with dependencies.
(Most of the ones that are present at this point just replace formerly
hardwired associations, such as the implicit drop of a relation's pg_type
entry when the relation is dropped.) Need to add more logic to create
dependency entries, improve pg_dump to dump constraints in place of
indexes and triggers, and add some regression tests.
DROP RULE and COMMENT ON RULE syntax adds an 'ON tablename' clause,
similar to TRIGGER syntaxes. To allow loading of existing pg_dump
files containing COMMENT ON RULE, the COMMENT code will still accept
the old syntax --- but only if the target rulename is unique across
the whole database.
objects to be privilege-checked. Some change in their APIs would be
necessary no matter what in the schema environment, and simply getting
rid of the name-based interface entirely seems like the best way.
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.
(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!
entry that has rules. This allows us to release the rule parsetrees
on relcache flush without needing a working freeObject() routine.
Formerly, the rule trees were leaked permanently at relcache flush.
Also, clean up handling of rule creation and deletion --- there was
not sufficient locking of the relation being modified, and there was
no reliable notification of other backends that a relcache reload
was needed. Also, clean up relcache.c code so that scans of system
tables needed to load a relcache entry are done in the caller's
memory context, not in CacheMemoryContext. This prevents any
un-pfreed memory from those scans from becoming a permanent memory
leak.
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.
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 ...
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
I'm able to get through a 'make' of the backend with no errors except
the occasional 'might not be initialized error', which is nothing major,
just annoying.
Have a few patches from D'Arcy to incorporate, but am waiting until I can
get a clean compile first, which I'm hoping to have before bed, or sometime
tomorrow.
Bruce Momjian