From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Haotian Chen <charliett2233(at)outlook(dot)com> |
Cc: | "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Dumped SQL failed to execute with ERROR "GROUP BY position -1 is not in select list" |
Date: | 2023-12-01 19:57:44 |
Message-ID: | 135913.1701460664@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Haotian Chen <charliett2233(at)outlook(dot)com> writes:
> postgres=# create view v1 as select * from t1 group by a,b,-1::int;
> CREATE VIEW
Hmm, surely that is a contrived case?
> After exploring codes, I suppose we should treat operator plus constant
> as -'nnn'::typename instead of const, my patch just did this by handling
> Opexpr especially, but I am not sure it's the best way or not,
Yeah, after some time looking at alternatives, I agree that hacking up
get_rule_sortgroupclause some more is the least risky way to make this
work. We could imagine changing the parser instead but people might
be depending on the current parsing behavior.
I don't like your patch too much though, particularly not the arbitrary
(and undocumented) change in get_const_expr; that seems way too likely
to have unexpected side-effects. Also, I think that relying on
generate_operator_name to produce exactly '-' (and not, say,
'pg_catalog.-') is unwise as well as unduly expensive.
There are, I think, precisely two operators we need to worry about here,
namely int4um and numeric_uminus. It'd be cheaper and more reliable to
identify those by OID. (If the underlying Const is neither int4 nor
numeric, it'll end up getting labeled with a typecast, so that we don't
need to worry about anything else.)
As for getting the right thing to be printed, I think what we might
want is to effectively const-fold the expression into a negative
Const, and then we can just apply get_const_expr with showtype=1.
(So we'd end with output like '-1'::integer or similar.)
We could do worse than to implement that by actual const-folding,
ie call expression_planner. Efficiency-wise that's not great, but
this is such a weird edge case that I don't think we need to sweat
about making it fast. The alternative of hand-rolled constant
folding code isn't very appealing.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2023-12-01 20:44:08 | Re: Refactoring backend fork+exec code |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2023-12-01 19:49:04 | Re: Building PosgresSQL with LLVM fails on Solaris 11.4 |