Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 06.09.2011 20:53, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Bruce Momjian writes:
> >>> Uh, have we addressed this? I don't think so.
> >>
> >> No. IIRC, I didn't like Heikki's proposed patch, so it's on my head
> >> to come up with something better.
> >
> > Yo
On 06.09.2011 20:53, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian writes:
Uh, have we addressed this? I don't think so.
No. IIRC, I didn't like Heikki's proposed patch, so it's on my head
to come up with something better.
You can blame me for getting it into the parser. It used to
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian writes:
> > Uh, have we addressed this? I don't think so.
>
> No. IIRC, I didn't like Heikki's proposed patch, so it's on my head
> to come up with something better.
You can blame me for getting it into the parser. It used to be in
gram.y!
--
Bruce Momjian
Bruce Momjian writes:
> Uh, have we addressed this? I don't think so.
No. IIRC, I didn't like Heikki's proposed patch, so it's on my head
to come up with something better.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make
Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Nope, this hasn't been addressed. FWIW, I put it on the todo list when I
> stopped working on it.
Oh, I see it now. Thanks.
---
>
> On 06.09.2011 20:48, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >
> > Uh, have we
Nope, this hasn't been addressed. FWIW, I put it on the todo list when I
stopped working on it.
On 06.09.2011 20:48, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Uh, have we addressed this? I don't think so.
---
Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 0
Uh, have we addressed this? I don't think so.
---
Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 02.04.2011 20:48, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Heikki Linnakangas writes:
> >> We sometimes transform IN-clauses to a list of ORs:
> >> postgres=# exp
Heikki Linnakangas writes:
> I'd like us to still fix this so that there's no multiple evaluation -
> that would actually make BETWEEN more useful than it is today. I'm
> working on a patch to handle both BETWEEN and IN.
One other issue here is that the parser has traditionally handled
BETWEEN
On 11.04.2011 19:33, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 11.04.2011 19:06, Kevin Grittner wrote:
Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Hmm, the SQL specification explicitly says that
X BETWEEN Y AND Z
is equal to
X>= Y AND X<= Z
It doesn't say anything about side-effects of X. Seems like an
oversight in the s
Heikki Linnakangas writes:
> Does anyone object to making BETWEEN and IN more strict about the data
> types? At the moment, you can do this:
> postgres=# SELECT '1234' BETWEEN '10001'::text AND 10002::int4;
> ?column?
> --
> t
> (1 row)
> I'm thinking that it should throw an error.
On 11.04.2011 19:06, Kevin Grittner wrote:
Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 05.04.2011 18:42, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 05.04.2011 13:19, Marti Raudsepp wrote:
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 14:24, Heikki Linnakangas
wrote:
We sometimes transform IN-clauses to a list of ORs:
postgres=# explain SEL
Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 05.04.2011 18:42, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>> On 05.04.2011 13:19, Marti Raudsepp wrote:
>>> On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 14:24, Heikki Linnakangas
>>> wrote:
We sometimes transform IN-clauses to a list of ORs:
postgres=# explain SELECT * FROM foo WHERE a
On 05.04.2011 18:42, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 05.04.2011 13:19, Marti Raudsepp wrote:
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 14:24, Heikki Linnakangas
wrote:
We sometimes transform IN-clauses to a list of ORs:
postgres=# explain SELECT * FROM foo WHERE a IN (b, c);
QUERY PLAN
Seq Scan on foo (cost=0.00..
On 05.04.2011 13:19, Marti Raudsepp wrote:
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 14:24, Heikki Linnakangas
wrote:
We sometimes transform IN-clauses to a list of ORs:
postgres=# explain SELECT * FROM foo WHERE a IN (b, c);
QUERY PLAN
Seq Scan on foo (cost=0.00..39.10 rows=19 width=12
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 14:24, Heikki Linnakangas
wrote:
> We sometimes transform IN-clauses to a list of ORs:
>
> postgres=# explain SELECT * FROM foo WHERE a IN (b, c);
> QUERY PLAN
> Seq Scan on foo (cost=0.00..39.10 rows=19 width=12)
> Filter: ((a = b) OR (a = c))
>
> B
Heikki Linnakangas writes:
> We sometimes transform IN-clauses to a list of ORs:
> postgres=# explain SELECT * FROM foo WHERE a IN (b, c);
>QUERY PLAN
> --
> Seq Scan on foo (cost=0.00..39.10 rows=19 width=12)
> Fil
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 7:24 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
wrote:
> My common sense says that that transformation
> is not legal.
+1.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To mak
On Fri, Apr 01, 2011 at 02:24:53PM +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> I tried to read the SQL spec to see if it has anything to say about
> that, but I couldn't find anything. My common sense says that that
> transformation is not legal.
Your feeling is correct; I would motivate it as follows.
We sometimes transform IN-clauses to a list of ORs:
postgres=# explain SELECT * FROM foo WHERE a IN (b, c);
QUERY PLAN
--
Seq Scan on foo (cost=0.00..39.10 rows=19 width=12)
Filter: ((a = b) OR (a = c))
(2 rows)
But w
19 matches
Mail list logo
