From: | Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Alex Hunsaker <badalex(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Functional dependencies and GROUP BY |
Date: | 2010-09-05 15:31:16 |
Message-ID: | AANLkTi=qFrH4vanBEBgY9WCa8aERdyLLTN=EPSvOLJ+-@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 5 September 2010 16:15, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> On 7 August 2010 03:51, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> I was testing out this feature this morning and discovered that the
>> results may be non-deterministic if the PK is deferrable.
>
> Good point.
>
>> The original version of the patch had that check in it, but it
>> vanished from the final committed version. Was that just an oversight,
>> or an intentional change?
>
> 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.
Regards,
Dean
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-09-05 15:35:45 | Re: Functional dependencies and GROUP BY |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-09-05 15:15:33 | Re: Functional dependencies and GROUP BY |