Thank you for the answers. I applied your first suggestion and of course it worked well.
There's an implicit question in your email, regarding why I would think of this outcome as a bug. Not knowing as much of the internals, after discovering that rows had gone missing my list of things to check was roughly: no joins, no where clause, no having clause, no grouping, no distinct, no distinct on, and no union/intersect/except. After that, I was down to pure trial and error to find the issue.
I get the message that the outcome was obvious to you. For me it was startling to have a function suppress the entire row, absent those other query elements. Even having read the note on 9.19, I struggle to see that as a warning that all rows may disappear. I also wonder how that outcome is consistent with this:
\pset null 'nuLL'
select 1, split_part('adfsgasf', '234', 3);
?column? | split_part
----------+------------
1 |
(1 row)
Even if it's perfectly sensible to you, I was caught off guard and I think a note in the documentation alerting readers to this behavior would go a long way in saving others from the prolonged confusion that I experienced.
Thanks again,
Pete O'Such
PG Bug reporting form <noreply@postgresql.org> writes:
> Sample data:
> create table test_rows as
> SELECT * FROM (VALUES (1, null), (2, 'second')) AS t (num,letter);
> Query with the unexpected result (I expected 2 rows):
> select num, unnest(string_to_array(letter, ',')) from test_rows;
> num | unnest
> ----+--------
> 2 | second
> (1 row)
Well, you could perhaps argue that string_to_array with NULL input
should produce an empty array rather than a NULL. But UNNEST()
would produce zero rows in either case, and I fail to see why you
find that surprising, much less buggy. It would be a bug if it
manufactured a value out of nothing.
Having said that, you could inject the value you prefer using
COALESCE, say
# select num, unnest(coalesce(string_to_array(letter, ','), '{""}')) from test_rows;
num | unnest
-----+--------
1 |
2 | second
(2 rows)
Alternatively, perhaps you'd consider a lateral left join to be
less-surprising behavior:
# select num, u from test_rows left join lateral unnest(string_to_array(letter, ',')) u on true;
num | u
-----+--------
1 |
2 | second
(2 rows)
The behavior you're getting from SRF-in-the-targetlist is basically
equivalent to a lateral plain join, rather than left join. See
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/xfunc-sql.html#XFUNC-SQL-FUNCTIONS-RETURNING-SET
regards, tom lane
