Re: Functional dependencies and GROUP BY

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alex Hunsaker <badalex(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Functional dependencies and GROUP BY
Date: 2010-09-05 18:28:10
Message-ID: 1283711290.12666.6.camel@vanquo.pezone.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On sön, 2010-09-05 at 11:35 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > On 5 September 2010 16:15, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> >> I don't recall having thought about it one way or the other. What did
> >> the check look like?
>
> > Well originally it was searching indexes rather than constraints, and
> > funcdeps_check_pk() included the following check:
>
> > if (!indexStruct->indisprimary || !indexStruct->indimmediate)
> > continue;
>
> > Now its looping over pg_constraint entries, so I guess anything wtih
> > con->condeferrable == true should be ignored.
>
> Seems reasonable, will fix. Thanks for the report!

Yes, the SQL standard explicitly requires the constraint in question to
be immediate.

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2010-09-05 22:11:27 Re: git: uh-oh
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2010-09-05 18:26:03 Re: returning multiple result sets from a stored procedure