"" <m...@instytut.com.pl> writes:
> The expression 'a & !(c) | a & b' is interpreted as '( a | !c ) & a & b'.
> select 'a & !(c) | a & b'::tsquery;
> Subsequent "rewrites" of the same expression give inconsistent results:
> select '(a & !(c | d)) | (a & b)'::tsquery; -> 'a & !(c | d) | a & b'
> (correct)
> select 'a & !(c | d) | a & b'::tsquery; -> '(a | !(c | d)) & a & b' (not
> correct)
Hmm. The immediate problem seems to be fixed by
diff --git a/src/backend/utils/adt/tsquery.c b/src/backend/utils/adt/tsquery.c
index
db9236a474157a7851e2a80516e865c050543634..ba09b3b2ce7fcc0815edf4a4622663291d6f0b8f
100644
*** a/src/backend/utils/adt/tsquery.c
--- b/src/backend/utils/adt/tsquery.c
*************** makepol(TSQueryParserState state,
*** 371,378 ****
case PT_OPEN:
makepol(state, pushval, opaque);
! if (lenstack && (opstack[lenstack - 1] ==
OP_AND ||
!
opstack[lenstack - 1] == OP_NOT))
{
lenstack--;
pushOperator(state, opstack[lenstack]);
--- 371,378 ----
case PT_OPEN:
makepol(state, pushval, opaque);
! while (lenstack && (opstack[lenstack - 1] ==
OP_AND ||
!
opstack[lenstack - 1] == OP_NOT))
{
lenstack--;
pushOperator(state, opstack[lenstack]);
but I can't say that I've got much confidence in the rest of that
function. It's an utter kluge.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs
