| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Peter Wright" <pete(at)flooble(dot)net> |
| Cc: | pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: BUG #1528: Rows returned that should be excluded by WHERE clause |
| Date: | 2005-03-10 23:49:47 |
| Message-ID: | 26929.1110498587@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers |
"Peter Wright" <pete(at)flooble(dot)net> writes:
> I think this demonstrates the problem much better than I could explain in
> words. The bug is shown in the two
> SELECT queries with a WHERE clause. Very bizarre.
I've applied a patch that corrects this problem in CVS HEAD, but since
it changes the behavior of HAVING in a nontrivial way, I'm inclined to
think that we should not backpatch it into existing release branches.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | John R Pierce | 2005-03-11 00:32:53 | Re: We are not following the spec for HAVING without GROUP |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-03-10 23:09:30 | Re: [HACKERS] We are not following the spec for HAVING without GROUP BY |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-03-10 23:55:06 | Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] snprintf causes regression tests to fail |
| Previous Message | Laszlo Hornyak | 2005-03-10 23:35:07 | Re: Runtime accepting build discrepancies |