Re: [HACKERS] Some progress on INSERT/SELECT/GROUP BY bugs - Mailing list pgsql-hackers
From | Bruce Momjian |
---|---|
Subject | Re: [HACKERS] Some progress on INSERT/SELECT/GROUP BY bugs |
Date | |
Msg-id | 199907071636.MAA01188@candle.pha.pa.us Whole thread Raw |
In response to | Re: [HACKERS] Some progress on INSERT/SELECT/GROUP BY bugs (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Responses |
Re: [HACKERS] Some progress on INSERT/SELECT/GROUP BY bugs
|
List | pgsql-hackers |
> Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us> writes: > > Tom, was this done? > > This is not done --- I wasn't willing to try to do such a thing by > myself when we were already in 6.5 beta. It's on my todo list for 6.6. On your list. Good. I can't possibly figure out how to describe this bug. > > 6.5 fails in a different way than 6.4 did, for reasons that I don't > recall offhand, but the only real fix is to restructure the analyzer. > > regards, tom lane > > > >> I believe I've identified the main cause of the peculiar behavior we > >> are seeing with INSERT ... SELECT ... GROUP/ORDER BY: it's a subtle > >> parser bug. > >> > >> Here is the test case I'm looking at: > >> > >> CREATE TABLE si_tmpverifyaccountbalances ( > >> type int4 NOT NULL, > >> memberid int4 NOT NULL, > >> categoriesid int4 NOT NULL, > >> amount numeric); > >> > >> CREATE TABLE invoicelinedetails ( > >> invoiceid int4, > >> memberid int4, > >> totshippinghandling numeric, > >> invoicelinesid int4); > >> > >> INSERT INTO si_tmpverifyaccountbalances SELECT invoiceid+3, > >> memberid, 1, totshippinghandling FROM invoicelinedetails > >> GROUP BY invoiceid+3, memberid, totshippinghandling; > >> > >> ERROR: INSERT has more expressions than target columns > >> > >> The reason this is coming out is that the matching of GROUP BY (also > >> ORDER BY) items to targetlist entries is fundamentally broken in this > >> context. The GROUP BY items "memberid" and "totshippinghandling" are > >> simply unvarnished Ident nodes when they arrive at findTargetlistEntry() > >> in parse_clause.c; what findTargetlistEntry() does with them is to try > >> to match them against the resdom names of the existing targetlist items. > >> I think that's correct behavior in the plain SELECT case (but note it > >> means "SELECT a AS b, b AS c GROUP BY b" will really group by a not b > >> --- is that per spec??). But it fails miserably in the INSERT/SELECT > >> case, because by the time control gets here, the targetlist items have > >> been given resdom names *corresponding to the column names of the target > >> table*. > >> > >> So, in the example at hand, "memberid" is matched to the correct column > >> by pure luck (because it has the same name in the destination table), > >> and then "totshippinghandling" is not recognized as one of the existing > >> TLEs because it does not match any destination column name. > >> > >> Now, call me silly, but it seems to me that SELECT ... GROUP BY ought > >> to mean the same thing no matter whether there is an INSERT in front of > >> it or not, and thus that letting target column names affect the meaning > >> of GROUP BY items is dead wrong. (Don't have a spec to check this with, > >> however.) > >> > >> I believe the most reasonable fix for this is to postpone relabeling > >> of the targetlist entries with destination column names until after > >> analysis of the SELECT's subsidiary clauses is complete. In particular, > >> it should *not* be done instantly when each TLE is made, which is what > >> MakeTargetEntryIdent currently does. The TLEs should have the same > >> resnames as in the SELECT case until after subsidiary clause processing > >> is done. > >> > >> (MakeTargetEntryIdent is broken anyway because it tries to associate > >> a destination column with every TLE, even the resjunk ones. The reason > >> we see the quoted error message in this situation is that after > >> findTargetlistEntry fails to detect that totshippinghandling is already > >> a TLE, it calls MakeTargetEntryIdent to make a junk TLE for > >> totshippinghandling, and then MakeTargetEntryIdent tries to find a > >> target column to go with the junk TLE. So the revised code should only > >> assign dest column names to non-junk TLEs.) > >> > >> I'm not really familiar enough with the parser to want to tackle this > >> size of change by myself --- Thomas, do you want to do it? I think it's > >> largely a matter of moving code around, but I'm not sure where is the > >> right place for it... > >> > >> regards, tom lane > >> > >> > > > > -- > > Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle > > maillist@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000 > > + If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue > > + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026 > -- Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle maillist@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania19026
pgsql-hackers by date: