On Sun, Oct 16, 2011 at 7:46 PM, Kerem Kat wrote:
> CORRESPONDING clause take 2
You should probably read this:
http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Submitting_a_Patch
And add your patch here:
https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/commitfest_view/open
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.ent
CORRESPONDING clause take 2
After realizing that modifying prepunion.c to include a custom subquery
is not easy(incomprehensible to me) as it sounds and turning into a
hassle after making several uninformed changes, I decided to go with
modifying analyze.c.
The incomprehensible part is constructi
Kerem Kat writes:
> In the parser while analyzing SetOperationStmt, larg and rarg needs to be
> transformed as subqueries. SetOperationStmt can have two fields representing
> larg and rarg with projected columns according to corresponding:
> larg_corresponding,
> rarg_corresponding.
Why? CORRESP
Kerem Kat writes:
> On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 19:51, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Why? CORRESPONDING at a given set-operation level doesn't affect either
>> sub-query, so I don't see why you'd need a different representation for
>> the sub-queries.
> In the planner to construct a subquery out of SetOperati
On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 19:51, Tom Lane wrote:
> Kerem Kat writes:
>> In the parser while analyzing SetOperationStmt, larg and rarg needs to be
>> transformed as subqueries. SetOperationStmt can have two fields representing
>> larg and rarg with projected columns according to corresponding:
>> la
On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 18:49, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Kerem Kat writes:
> > There is a catch inserting subqueries for corresponding in the planner.
> > Parser expects to see equal number of columns in both sides of the
> > UNION query. If there is corresponding however we cannot guarantee that.
>
>
Kerem Kat writes:
> There is a catch inserting subqueries for corresponding in the planner.
> Parser expects to see equal number of columns in both sides of the
> UNION query. If there is corresponding however we cannot guarantee that.
Well, you certainly need the parse analysis code to be aware
I am looking into perpunion.c and analyze.c
There is a catch inserting subqueries for corresponding in the planner.
Parser expects to see equal number of columns in both sides of the
UNION query. If there is corresponding however we cannot guarantee that.
Target columns, collations and types for t
Kerem Kat writes:
> While testing I noticed that ordering is incorrect in my implementation. At
> first I thought that removing mismatched entries from ltargetlist and
> rtargetlist would be enough, it didn't seem enough so I added rtargetlist
> sorting.
I don't think you can get away with changi
While testing I noticed that ordering is incorrect in my implementation. At
first I thought that removing mismatched entries from ltargetlist and
rtargetlist would be enough, it didn't seem enough so I added rtargetlist
sorting.
SELECT 1 a, 2 b, 3 c UNION CORRESPONDING 4 b, 5 a, 6 c;
returns incor
I delved into the code without waiting for comments from the list just to
learn something about postgresql internals. And I have finished the
CORRESPONDING, now CORRESPONDING BY is being tested. I will also write
documentation and regression tests.
Yes Robert, you are correct. Having used SQL 20n
On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 5:39 AM, Kerem Kat wrote:
> I am new to postgresql code, I would like to start implementing easyish TODO
> items. I have read most of the development guidelines, faqs, articles by
> Greg Smith (Hacking Postgres with UDFs, Adding WHEN to triggers).
> The item I would like to
Is it feasible to implement the CORRESPONDING [BY (expr_list)] statement in
set operations by the following changes:
i) In analyze.c:transformSetOperationStmt after parsing left and right
queries as subnodes to a set operation tree,
a) CORRESPONDING: Find matching column targets from both stat
Hello,
I am new to postgresql code, I would like to start implementing easyish TODO
items. I have read most of the development guidelines, faqs, articles by
Greg Smith (Hacking Postgres with UDFs, Adding WHEN to triggers).
The item I would like to implement is adding CORRESPONDING [BY
(col1[,col2
14 matches
Mail list logo
