bug in 8.4 and resolved

On 04/21/2013 10:12 PM, Abhinav Dwivedi wrote:

Dear Member,

We found a bug in postgresql 8.4 details are follows.

If a syntactically wrong query is made inner query of a nested query
then the whole query wrongly returns a dataset instead of an error
message. For example:

select * from district where statecode in (Select districtcode from state)

Please note that the attribute districtcode is not existent in the table
state and if this query i.e. Select districtcode from state is executed
in isolation then it correctly throws an error message. But when this
incorrect query is made inner query of a nested query then the whole
query wrongly returns a dataset.

This issue is observed on Postgres8.4 and is found resolved on
Postgres9.1. But our issue is that our application is using postgres8.4.
Where to upgrade is not possible in quick time .so is there a possible
fix (patch etc.. ) for this on Postgres8.4 itself.

What minor version of 8.4 are you using?

Thanks and Regards..
Abhinav

--
Adrian Klaver
adrian.klaver@gmail.com

--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

Abhinav Dwivedi wrote on 22.04.2013 07:12:

select * from district where statecode in (Select districtcode from state)

Please note that the attribute districtcode is not existent in the table state and
if this query i.e. Select districtcode from state is executed in isolation then it
correctly throws an error message. But when this incorrect query is made inner query
of a nested query then the whole query wrongly returns a dataset.

I assume the column districtcode is present in the table district. In that case this is not a bug,
this is required by the SQL standard. The sub-query references the column from the outer query.

And I don't think this has been changed with 9.x (nor will it ever).

--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

On 4/22/2013 3:13 PM, Thomas Kellerer wrote:

Abhinav Dwivedi wrote on 22.04.2013 07:12:

select * from district where statecode in (Select districtcode from
state)

Please note that the attribute districtcode is not existent in the
table state and
if this query i.e. Select districtcode from state is executed in
isolation then it
correctly throws an error message. But when this incorrect query is
made inner query
of a nested query then the whole query wrongly returns a dataset.

I assume the column districtcode is present in the table district. In
that case this is not a bug,
this is required by the SQL standard. The sub-query references the
column from the outer query.

And I don't think this has been changed with 9.x (nor will it ever).

if that had been written as an explicit join, there would be less ambiguity.

select district.* from district join state using(statecode);

assuming that's even what you wanted.

--
john r pierce 37N 122W
somewhere on the middle of the left coast

--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

On 04/23/2013 12:29 AM, John R Pierce wrote:

On 4/22/2013 3:13 PM, Thomas Kellerer wrote:

Abhinav Dwivedi wrote on 22.04.2013 07:12:

select * from district where statecode in (Select districtcode from
state)

Please note that the attribute districtcode is not existent in the
table state and
if this query i.e. Select districtcode from state is executed in
isolation then it
correctly throws an error message. But when this incorrect query is
made inner query
of a nested query then the whole query wrongly returns a dataset.

I assume the column districtcode is present in the table district. In
that case this is not a bug,
this is required by the SQL standard. The sub-query references the
column from the outer query.

And I don't think this has been changed with 9.x (nor will it ever).

if that had been written as an explicit join, there would be less
ambiguity.

select district.* from district join state using(statecode);

assuming that's even what you wanted.

That's not an equivalent query. Abhinav is doing a semi-join.

--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general