Re: New CORRESPONDING clause design

From: Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Surafel Temesgen <surafel3000(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: New CORRESPONDING clause design
Date: 2017-03-30 19:29:32
Message-ID: CAFj8pRBEQ7FWn1wKjLHDh9Y9_HynTyJYyFTdTjSmNhbQVDhkUQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi

2017-03-30 13:11 GMT+02:00 Surafel Temesgen <surafel3000(at)gmail(dot)com>:

> hi
>
> Thank you very much for your help .
> here is the patch fix that issue as you suggest
>

The crash is fixed

I did a rebase + few more regress tests.

Is following use case defined in standard?

postgres=# SELECT 0 AS x1, 1 AS a, 0 AS x2, 2 AS b, 0 AS x3, -1 AS x3
UNION ALL CORRESPONDING BY(a,b) SELECT 4 AS b, 0 AS x4, 3 AS a,
0 AS x6, -1 AS x6
UNION ALL CORRESPONDING SELECT 0 AS x8, 6 AS a, -100 AS aa;
┌───┐
│ a │
╞═══╡
│ 1 │
│ 3 │
│ 6 │
└───┘
(3 rows)

It depends on order of implementation

if we do (T1 U T2) U T3 ---> then result is correct,
but if we do T1 U (T2 U T3) ---> than it should to fail

I am not sure, if this result is expected (correct). I expect more syntax
error because corresponding by is not filled.

>
> Regards
>
> Surafel
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 5:44 PM, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> 2017-03-28 14:18 GMT+02:00 Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2017-03-28 13:58 GMT+02:00 Surafel Temesgen <surafel3000(at)gmail(dot)com>:
>>>
>>>> can you help with fixing it Pavel?
>>>>
>>>
>>> There must be some new preanalyze stage - you have to know result
>>> columns before you are starting a analyze
>>>
>>
>> maybe some recheck after analyze stage to remove invalid columns can be
>> good enough.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Pavel
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>> Pavel
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 11:48 AM, Pavel Stehule <
>>>> pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi
>>>>>
>>>>> fresh update - I enhanced Value node by location field as Tom proposal.
>>>>>
>>>>> Few more regress tests.
>>>>>
>>>>> But I found significant issue, that needs bigger fix - Surafel,
>>>>> please, can you fix it.
>>>>>
>>>>> It crash on
>>>>>
>>>>> SELECT 0 AS x1, 1 AS a, 0 AS x2, 2 AS b, 0 AS x3, -1 AS x3
>>>>> UNION ALL CORRESPONDING SELECT 4 AS b, 0 AS x4, 3 AS a, 0 AS x6, -1 AS
>>>>> x6
>>>>> UNION ALL CORRESPONDING SELECT 0 AS x8, 6 AS b, -100 AS x9;
>>>>>
>>>>> I'll mark this patch as waiting on author
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards
>>>>>
>>>>> Pavel
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>

Attachment Content-Type Size
corresponding_clause_v11.patch text/x-patch 71.5 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Dave Page 2017-03-30 19:31:55 Re: Monitoring roles patch
Previous Message Tom Lane 2017-03-30 19:27:23 Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Default monitoring roles