Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: [HACKERS] Current sources?

From: David Hartwig <daveh(at)insightdist(dot)com>
To: Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Current sources?
Date: 1998-05-27 17:53:03
Message-ID: 356C52FF.B67F1CA1@insightdist.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Bruce Momjian wrote:

> > The second option (your earlier suggestion) seems to be necessary and sufficient.   The junk filter (and
> > jf_cleanTupType) will always exist, for SELECT statements, as long as the following is not a legal statement:
> >
> >         SELECT   FROM foo GROUP BY bar;
> >
> > Currently the parser will not accept it.  Sufficient.
> >
> > The first option will set tupType, for non-SELECT statements, to something it otherwise may not have been.
> > I would rather not risk effecting those calling routines which are not executing a SELECT command.  At this
> > time, I do not understand them enough, and I see no benefit.   Necessary?
>
> OK, I will leave it alone.  Is there a way to use junk filters only in
> cases where we need them?

I have not YET come up with a clean method for detection of the a resjunk flag being set, on some resdom in the
tatget list, by a GROUP/ORDER BY.   I will give it another look.   It does seem a bit heavy handed to construct the
filter unconditionally on all SELECTS.


In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 1998-05-27 19:07:00
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Current sources?
Previous:From: Mattias KregertDate: 1998-05-27 11:34:01
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Current sources?

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group