Re: [HACKERS] Join syntax

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu>
Cc: Postgres Hackers List <hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Join syntax
Date: 1999-09-16 14:09:37
Message-ID: 22127.937490977@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu> writes:
> It's a real pita to flatten the join expressions into the traditional
> Postgres query tree. It would be nice to start thinking about how to
> represent general subqueries or intermediate queries in the parse
> tree.

Yes. Jan has been saying for some time that he needs that for rules.
Also, I have found some squirrely cases in INSERT ... SELECT ... that
can't really be done right unless the INSERT and SELECT targetlists
are kept separate, which seems to mean a two-level parsetree structure.

The UNION/INTERSECT/EXCEPT code has a really klugy approach to
multi-query parse trees, which maybe could be cleaned up if we
supported them in a more general fashion.

Maybe it's time to bite the bullet and do it. You have any thoughts
on what the representation should look like?

regards, tom lane

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Richard Bouska 1999-09-16 14:16:58 1d,1e,1f poison for data?
Previous Message Tom Lane 1999-09-16 13:48:47 Re: [HACKERS] NOTICE: SIReadEntryData: cache state reset TRAP: Failed Assertion("!(RelationNameCache->hctl->nkeys == 10):", File: "relcache.c", Line: 1458)