HAVING clause and 6.3.2 release
Attached is a list of bug reports for the HAVING clause.
My question is, "Do we disable the HAVING clause for 6.3.2?" The bugs
are serious and cause crashes.
I have looked at the issues, and the basic problems are that the
aggregate logic expects to be attached to an actual field in the target
list, and the HAVING clause does not properly handle non-aggregate
retrictions, nor does it prevent them. COUNT(*) uses the oid of the
first FROM table, so that is a problem too.
I have looked at the code, but don't have time to fix it before Friday,
and holding up the release for that would be silly. I don't think there
is one thing wrong, but several places that have to be change to get
this working solidly.
Do we disable it?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Wed, 15 Apr 1998, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Attached is a list of bug reports for the HAVING clause.
My question is, "Do we disable the HAVING clause for 6.3.2?" The bugs
are serious and cause crashes.I have looked at the issues, and the basic problems are that the
aggregate logic expects to be attached to an actual field in the target
list, and the HAVING clause does not properly handle non-aggregate
retrictions, nor does it prevent them. COUNT(*) uses the oid of the
first FROM table, so that is a problem too.I have looked at the code, but don't have time to fix it before Friday,
and holding up the release for that would be silly. I don't think there
is one thing wrong, but several places that have to be change to get
this working solidly.Do we disable it?
Yes...but disabling means that it *will not* be available until
v6.4...no v6.3.3 :)
Marc G. Fournier
Systems Administrator @ hub.org
primary: scrappy@hub.org secondary: scrappy@{freebsd|postgresql}.org
On Thu, 16 Apr 1998, The Hermit Hacker wrote:
On Wed, 15 Apr 1998, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Attached is a list of bug reports for the HAVING clause.
My question is, "Do we disable the HAVING clause for 6.3.2?" The bugs
are serious and cause crashes.I have looked at the issues, and the basic problems are that the
aggregate logic expects to be attached to an actual field in the target
list, and the HAVING clause does not properly handle non-aggregate
retrictions, nor does it prevent them. COUNT(*) uses the oid of the
first FROM table, so that is a problem too.I have looked at the code, but don't have time to fix it before Friday,
and holding up the release for that would be silly. I don't think there
is one thing wrong, but several places that have to be change to get
this working solidly.Do we disable it?
Yes...but disabling means that it *will not* be available until
v6.4...no v6.3.3 :)
What about including it as an optional feature by defining something like
/* #define BUGGY_HAVING_CLAUSE */
Marc Zuckman
marc@fallon.classyad.com
_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
_ Visit The Home and Condo MarketPlace _
_ http://www.ClassyAd.com _
_ _
_ FREE basic property listings/advertisements and searches. _
_ _
_ Try our premium, yet inexpensive services for a real _
_ selling or buying edge! _
_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
My question is, "Do we disable the HAVING clause for 6.3.2?" The
bugs are serious and cause crashes.
Do we disable it?Yes...but disabling means that it *will not* be available until
v6.4...no v6.3.3 :)
Hmm. What is the downside to leaving it in with caveats or "stay away"
warnings in the release notes? Since it didn't exist as a feature
before, the only downside I see is somewhat increased traffic on the
questions list...
- Tom
On Thu, 16 Apr 1998, Thomas G. Lockhart wrote:
My question is, "Do we disable the HAVING clause for 6.3.2?" The
bugs are serious and cause crashes.
Do we disable it?Yes...but disabling means that it *will not* be available until
v6.4...no v6.3.3 :)Hmm. What is the downside to leaving it in with caveats or "stay away"
warnings in the release notes? Since it didn't exist as a feature
before, the only downside I see is somewhat increased traffic on the
questions list...
I liked the one suggestion about having it as a compile time
option until its fixed...
On Thu, 16 Apr 1998, Thomas G. Lockhart wrote:
My question is, "Do we disable the HAVING clause for 6.3.2?" The
bugs are serious and cause crashes.
Do we disable it?Yes...but disabling means that it *will not* be available until
v6.4...no v6.3.3 :)Hmm. What is the downside to leaving it in with caveats or "stay away"
warnings in the release notes? Since it didn't exist as a feature
before, the only downside I see is somewhat increased traffic on the
questions list...I liked the one suggestion about having it as a compile time
option until its fixed...
How about an elog(NOTICE,"...") so it runs, but they see the NOTICE
every time.
--
Bruce Momjian | 830 Blythe Avenue
maillist@candle.pha.pa.us | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
+ If your life is a hard drive, | (610) 353-9879(w)
+ Christ can be your backup. | (610) 853-3000(h)My question is, "Do we disable the HAVING clause for 6.3.2?" The
bugs are serious and cause crashes.
Do we disable it?Yes...but disabling means that it *will not* be available until
v6.4...no v6.3.3 :)Hmm. What is the downside to leaving it in with caveats or "stay away"
warnings in the release notes? Since it didn't exist as a feature
before, the only downside I see is somewhat increased traffic on the
questions list...
We could do a elog(NOTICE,...) and have a small patch to fix all the
issues once we have a final fix.
--
Bruce Momjian | 830 Blythe Avenue
maillist@candle.pha.pa.us | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
+ If your life is a hard drive, | (610) 353-9879(w)
+ Christ can be your backup. | (610) 853-3000(h)On Thu, 16 Apr 1998, Bruce Momjian wrote:
On Thu, 16 Apr 1998, Thomas G. Lockhart wrote:
My question is, "Do we disable the HAVING clause for 6.3.2?" The
bugs are serious and cause crashes.
Do we disable it?Yes...but disabling means that it *will not* be available until
v6.4...no v6.3.3 :)Hmm. What is the downside to leaving it in with caveats or "stay away"
warnings in the release notes? Since it didn't exist as a feature
before, the only downside I see is somewhat increased traffic on the
questions list...I liked the one suggestion about having it as a compile time
option until its fixed...How about an elog(NOTICE,"...") so it runs, but they see the NOTICE
every time.
That works too...but how does something like that work from within
a C program? Or Perl?
On Wed, 15 Apr 1998, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Attached is a list of bug reports for the HAVING clause.
My question is, "Do we disable the HAVING clause for 6.3.2?" The bugs
are serious and cause crashes.I have looked at the issues, and the basic problems are that the
aggregate logic expects to be attached to an actual field in the target
list, and the HAVING clause does not properly handle non-aggregate
retrictions, nor does it prevent them. COUNT(*) uses the oid of the
first FROM table, so that is a problem too.I have looked at the code, but don't have time to fix it before Friday,
and holding up the release for that would be silly. I don't think there
is one thing wrong, but several places that have to be change to get
this working solidly.Do we disable it?
Don't do that. If you disable it, we can't help you to correct bugs ?
Jose'
How about an elog(NOTICE,"...") so it runs, but they see the NOTICE
every time.That works too...but how does something like that work from within
a C program? Or Perl?
I have disabled HAVING completely, and removed it from the features
list. I think we have enough bug reports on it that allowing people to
use it is really not going to give us any additional bug-fixing
information.
We can always release a 6.3.2 patch that will enable it when we have it
working 100%.
--
Bruce Momjian | 830 Blythe Avenue
maillist@candle.pha.pa.us | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
+ If your life is a hard drive, | (610) 353-9879(w)
+ Christ can be your backup. | (610) 853-3000(h)