Re: [HACKERS] Release 6.4

>
> On Sat, 29 Aug 1998, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> > As far as I am concerned, we are ready to go.
>
> I've already started up the nightly snapshots for
> debugging...anyone else has any "new features" they want to slide in
> before the BETA freeze, they have until tomorrow (Monday)...after that,
> its purely a bug fix period.
>
> First v6.4beta1 to be put out on Friday, final release to be put
> out on October 1st...
>
> Marc G. Fournier

Back from a training this week.

I had really trouble on the attempt to fix more things in the
rewrite system. Thus I decided to give a new rewrite handler
a try and up to now I got the view rewrite stuff working (can
handle most cases of RIR rules including aggregate columns
that are rewritten into subselects when used in the
qualification). Must now adapt the insert/update/delete stuff
into it.

What's the target for 6.4 release?

Another question on aggregate columns:

I can define a view

CREATE VIEW v1 AS SELECT x.a, x.b, count(y.a)
FROM t1 x, t2 y WHERE x.a = y.a GROUP BY x.a, x.b;

But it's impossible to omit the group by and another side
effect is that it would never return any row where count(y.a)
would be zero.

Is that the correct behaviour? What does standard say?

The zero counting rows could also show up and the group by
clause can be optional if we create a new type of func node
that contains a parsetree instead of a reference to the
pg_proc entry. The rewrite handler could build them and I
know how. And it would enhance the view capabilities
extremely since using that technique a qualification could
compare two aggregate columns of a view. This is still
missing in the new rewrite handler because the planner cannot
handle sublinks with an aggregate in the lefthand.

Can we agree that this is still bug fixing instead of new
feature? How much time would I have to make it working?

Jan

--

#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#======================================== jwieck(at)debis(dot)com (Jan Wieck) #