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 |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
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.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 1998-05-27 19:07:00 | Re: [HACKERS] Current sources? |
Previous Message | Mattias Kregert | 1998-05-27 11:34:01 | Re: [HACKERS] Current sources? |