Re: Row pattern recognition - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Henson Choi
Subject Re: Row pattern recognition
Date
Msg-id CAAAe_zAn2nFgM_gfsEDYu+MXCArRFoP6s9bRz2bP4X5HNmnYww@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Row pattern recognition  (Tatsuo Ishii <ishii@postgresql.org>)
Responses Re: Row pattern recognition
List pgsql-hackers
Hi Tatsuo,
 
>   10/12  Walk DEFINE clause in window tree traversal  [new]
>          A newly discovered issue: nodeFuncs.c was not visiting the
>          DEFINE clause in expression_tree_walker, query_tree_walker,
>          and their mutator counterparts. The demonstrated case is SQL
>          function inlining: a SQL function with a parameter used in
>          DEFINE (e.g., DEFINE A AS v > $1) would fail to substitute
>          the actual argument, producing wrong results.

Excellnt findings!  BTW, I realized that we cannot use $1 of function
in PATTERN clause like: A{$1}.

ERROR:  42601: syntax error at or near "$1"
LINE 10:         PATTERN (A{$1})
                            ^
LOCATION:  scanner_yyerror, scan.l:1211

Should we document somewhere?

The PATTERN quantifier {n} only accepts Iconst (integer literal) in the
grammar.  When a host variable or function parameter is used (e.g.,
A{$1}), the user gets a generic syntax error.

Oracle accepts broader syntax and validates later, producing an error
at a later stage rather than a syntax error at parse time.

PostgreSQL itself already has precedent for this pattern -- in fact,
within the same window clause, frame offset (ROWS/RANGE/GROUPS) accepts
a_expr in the grammar and then rejects variables in parse analysis via
transformFrameOffset() -> checkExprIsVarFree().

I'd lean against documenting this.  The SQL standard already defines
the quantifier bound as <unsigned integer literal>, so there is nothing
beyond the standard to call out, and documenting what is *not* allowed
tends to raise questions that wouldn't otherwise occur to users.

Rather, I think accepting a broader grammar and validating later would
be the more appropriate response, producing a descriptive error like:

  "argument of bounded quantifier must be an integer literal"

I can either include this in the current patch set or handle it as a
separate follow-up after the main series is committed.  What do you
think?

Regards,
Henson

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Richard Guo
Date:
Subject: Re: Convert NOT IN sublinks to anti-joins when safe
Next
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: Avoid resource leak (src/bin/pg_dump/pg_dumpall.c)