Re[2]: [HACKERS] BUG ON HAVING CLAUSE

From: Sferacarta Software <sferac(at)bo(dot)nettuno(dot)it>
To: Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re[2]: [HACKERS] BUG ON HAVING CLAUSE
Date: 1998-12-14 14:21:41
Message-ID: 8640.981214@bo.nettuno.it
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hello Bruce,

domenica, 13 dicembre 98, you wrote:

>> Hi all,
>>
>> Seems that I found a bug on HAVING clause, see attached file.
>>
>> -Jose'-

BM> Can you summarize what was the result of your several bug reports on IN
BM> and HAVING. Is there a problem that needs to be added to the TODO list?

Well, I tried IN-ANY-ALL on a subselect containing an HAVING clause
like:

select * from emp where ename in (
select ename from emp group by ename having 1 < count(ename)
);

and I was thought that IN-ANY-ALL were buggy, then I tried this:

select * from emp where ename IN (
select ename from emp where deptno=20);

and now I know the bug is only in the HAVING clause.

-Jose'-

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Thomas G. Lockhart 1998-12-14 14:53:26 Re: [HACKERS] nabstime.c changes...
Previous Message Oleg Broytmann 1998-12-14 13:47:17 Re: [HACKERS] Date/time on glibc2 linux