I believe this is fixed was fixed by my RelationGetRelationName and
> Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> >> The bottom line here is that we mustn't generate separate RTEs for the
> >> logical and physical table names.
> > Are you saying a join on a temp table will not work?
> Not at all; I'm saying that it's incorrect to generate a join for a
> simple UPDATE. What we had was
> UPDATE table SET arrayfield[sub] = val;
> which is really implemented as (more or less)
> UPDATE table SET arrayfield = ARRAYINSERT(arrayfield, sub, val);
> which works fine as long as you apply the computation and update once
> per tuple in the table (or once per tuple selected by WHERE, if there
> is one). But for a temp table, what really gets emitted from the
> parser is effectively like
> UPDATE logtable SET arrayfield = arrayinsert(phytable.field,
> sub, val)
> FROM logtable phytable;
> This is a Cartesian join, meaning that each tuple in
> logtable-as-destination will be processed in combination with each tuple
> in logtable-as-phytable. The particular case Kristofer reported
> implements the join as a nested loop with logtable-as-destination as the
> inner side of the join. So, each target tuple gets updated once with
> an arrayfield value computed off each available source tuple --- and
> when the dust settles, they've all got the value computed from the last
> source tuple. That's why they're all the same in his bug report.
> Adding a WHERE clause limits the damage, but the target tuples will all
> still get the same value, if I'm visualizing the behavior correctly.
> It's the wrong thing in any case; the very best you could hope for is
> that the tuples all manage to get the right values after far more
> processing than necessary. There should be no join for a simple UPDATE.
> regards, tom lane
Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle
maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 1999-11-30 03:11:06|
|Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Status of sql_help.h|
|Previous:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 1999-11-30 02:41:44|
|Subject: Re: [HACKERS] union and LIMIT problem|