Dean Rasheed writes:
> On 13 December 2013 15:07, Tom Lane wrote:
>> How about as-is in the back branches, and throw the new errors only
>> in HEAD?
> Seems reasonable.
After further experimentation I've concluded that maybe we'd better
not back-patch this change. The reason for my change of h
On 13 December 2013 15:07, Tom Lane wrote:
> Dean Rasheed writes:
>> I can't think of any practical uses for this kind of query, so I don't
>> think it's worth worrying too much about its results until/unless
>> someone comes up with a real use-case.
>
>> However, given that we currently support
Dean Rasheed writes:
> I can't think of any practical uses for this kind of query, so I don't
> think it's worth worrying too much about its results until/unless
> someone comes up with a real use-case.
> However, given that we currently support queries like "select distinct
> * from nocols" (alb
On 13 December 2013 01:14, Tom Lane wrote:
> The only thing I've come across that arguably doesn't work is SELECT
> DISTINCT:
>
> regression=# select distinct from pg_database;
> --
> (8 rows)
>
> The reason this says "8 rows" is that the produced plan is just a seqscan
> of pg_database returning
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> Tom Lane escribió:
>> What I'm thinking about this today is that really the *right* solution
>> is to allow syntactically-empty SELECT lists; once we've bought into the
>> notion of zero-column tables, the notion that you can't have an empty
>> select list is just fundamen
Tom Lane escribió:
> What I'm thinking about this today is that really the *right* solution
> is to allow syntactically-empty SELECT lists; once we've bought into the
> notion of zero-column tables, the notion that you can't have an empty
> select list is just fundamentally at odds with that. And
Dean Rasheed writes:
> On 3 December 2013 23:37, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Thinking some more about bug #8648, it occurred to me that ruleutils.c
>> isn't exactly prepared for the case either:
>> ... So I'm leaning towards just doing
>>
>> + if (colno == 0)
>> + app
On 3 December 2013 23:37, Tom Lane wrote:
> Thinking some more about bug #8648, it occurred to me that ruleutils.c
> isn't exactly prepared for the case either:
>
> regression=# create table nocols();
> CREATE TABLE
> regression=# create view vv1 as select exists (select * from nocols);
> CREATE V
Thinking some more about bug #8648, it occurred to me that ruleutils.c
isn't exactly prepared for the case either:
regression=# create table nocols();
CREATE TABLE
regression=# create view vv1 as select exists (select * from nocols);
CREATE VIEW
regression=# \d+ vv1
View "public.
