Justin Clift <jc(at)telstra(dot)net> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Actually, if you look at the source code (information_schema.sql) there
>> is no ORDER BY in it, only a DISTINCT. The ORDER BY gets added by the
>> parser to help implement the DISTINCT. Sooner or later we should look
>> at suppressing the added ORDER BY when displaying the view.
> If someone fixes this can we make sure it goes into 7.4.4 as well (if
> it's not a drastic code change)?
The thoughts I had for fixing it involved adding a field to SortClause
nodes to show whether they came from an actual user clause or were added
by the parser. This would be an initdb-forcing change and thus
unsuitable for a backpatch to 7.4 ...
> It's not a data corrupting bug but it's stopping view definitions from
> "working as advertised" which is bad if you're used to being able to
> rely on them. :-/
No, the pretty-printer's failure to add parens here is a different bug.
That we could fix without a data structure change. It's just a matter
of figuring out exactly where it's being too permissive about dropping
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Christopher Kings-Lynne||Date: 2004-07-02 03:36:34|
|Subject: Re: Bug with view definitions?|
|Previous:||From: Christopher Kings-Lynne||Date: 2004-07-02 03:06:44|
|Subject: compile errors in new PL/Pler|