Re: [HACKERS] Release 6.4

From: Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: jwieck(at)debis(dot)com
Cc: scrappy(at)hub(dot)org, hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Release 6.4
Date: 1998-09-04 18:18:36
Message-ID: 199809041818.OAA14288@candle.pha.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> >
> > On Sat, 29 Aug 1998, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >
> > > As far as I am concerned, we are ready to go.
> >
> > I've already started up the nightly snapshots for
> > debugging...anyone else has any "new features" they want to slide in
> > before the BETA freeze, they have until tomorrow (Monday)...after that,
> > its purely a bug fix period.
> >
> > First v6.4beta1 to be put out on Friday, final release to be put
> > out on October 1st...
> >
> > Marc G. Fournier
>
> Back from a training this week.
>
> I had really trouble on the attempt to fix more things in the
> rewrite system. Thus I decided to give a new rewrite handler
> a try and up to now I got the view rewrite stuff working (can
> handle most cases of RIR rules including aggregate columns
> that are rewritten into subselects when used in the
> qualification). Must now adapt the insert/update/delete stuff
> into it.
>
> What's the target for 6.4 release?
>
> Another question on aggregate columns:
>
> I can define a view
>
> CREATE VIEW v1 AS SELECT x.a, x.b, count(y.a)
> FROM t1 x, t2 y WHERE x.a = y.a GROUP BY x.a, x.b;
>
> But it's impossible to omit the group by and another side
> effect is that it would never return any row where count(y.a)
> would be zero.
>
> Is that the correct behaviour? What does standard say?
>
> The zero counting rows could also show up and the group by
> clause can be optional if we create a new type of func node
> that contains a parsetree instead of a reference to the
> pg_proc entry. The rewrite handler could build them and I
> know how. And it would enhance the view capabilities
> extremely since using that technique a qualification could
> compare two aggregate columns of a view. This is still
> missing in the new rewrite handler because the planner cannot
> handle sublinks with an aggregate in the lefthand.
>
> Can we agree that this is still bug fixing instead of new
> feature? How much time would I have to make it working?

OK, Jan, keep going. We still have one big bug to fix, and are going to
try to get another item completed. I would say you have a good 7-10
days to keep adding stuff.

The fact that your rewrite fixes MANY long-standing bugs in the view
system means you can contininue adding things in that area well into the
beta period.

Not sure what the cut-off would be because we need to get to a point
where no more bugs are being reported, but we clearly are a long ways
from that right now.

--
Bruce Momjian | 830 Blythe Avenue
maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
+ If your life is a hard drive, | (610) 353-9879(w)
+ Christ can be your backup. | (610) 853-3000(h)

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 1998-09-04 18:21:23 Re: [HACKERS] questionable code in heap_formtuple()
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 1998-09-04 18:15:55 Re: CIDR/IP types. Was: [GENERAL] big numbers