Re: [HACKERS] Release 6.4 - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

> >
> > On Sat, 29 Aug 1998, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >
> > > As far as I am concerned, we are ready to go.
> >
> >    I've already started up the nightly snapshots for
> > debugging...anyone else has any "new features" they want to slide in
> > before the BETA freeze, they have until tomorrow (Monday)...after that,
> > its purely a bug fix period.
> >
> >    First v6.4beta1 to be put out on Friday, final release to be put
> > out on October 1st...
> >
> > Marc G. Fournier
>
>     Back from a training this week.
>
>     I had really trouble on the attempt to fix more things in the
>     rewrite system. Thus I decided to give a new rewrite  handler
>     a try and up to now I got the view rewrite stuff working (can
>     handle most cases of RIR rules  including  aggregate  columns
>     that   are   rewritten  into  subselects  when  used  in  the
>     qualification). Must now adapt the insert/update/delete stuff
>     into it.
>
>     What's the target for 6.4 release?
>
>     Another question on aggregate columns:
>
>     I can define a view
>
>         CREATE VIEW v1 AS SELECT x.a, x.b, count(y.a)
>             FROM t1 x, t2 y WHERE x.a = y.a GROUP BY x.a, x.b;
>
>     But  it's  impossible  to  omit the group by and another side
>     effect is that it would never return any row where count(y.a)
>     would be zero.
>
>     Is that the correct behaviour? What does standard say?
>
>     The  zero  counting  rows could also show up and the group by
>     clause can be optional if we create a new type of  func  node
>     that  contains  a  parsetree  instead  of  a reference to the
>     pg_proc entry.  The rewrite handler could build  them  and  I
>     know   how.  And  it  would  enhance  the  view  capabilities
>     extremely since using that technique  a  qualification  could
>     compare  two  aggregate  columns  of  a  view.  This is still
>     missing in the new rewrite handler because the planner cannot
>     handle sublinks with an aggregate in the lefthand.
>
>     Can  we  agree  that  this is still bug fixing instead of new
>     feature?  How much time would I have to make it working?

OK, Jan, keep going.  We still have one big bug to fix, and are going to
try to get another item completed.  I would say you have a good 7-10
days to keep adding stuff.

The fact that your rewrite fixes MANY long-standing bugs in the view
system means you can contininue adding things in that area well into the
beta period.

Not sure what the cut-off would be because we need to get to a point
where no more bugs are being reported, but we clearly are a long ways
from that right now.

--
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)