Re: New CORRESPONDING clause design - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Pavel Stehule
Subject Re: New CORRESPONDING clause design
Date
Msg-id CAFj8pRBNjgkCuPJTiQ87Lb-EZjT=w5s21rT4P=Gk3aKFmCiX-A@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: New CORRESPONDING clause design  (Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: New CORRESPONDING clause design
List pgsql-hackers


2017-03-28 14:18 GMT+02:00 Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>:


2017-03-28 13:58 GMT+02:00 Surafel Temesgen <surafel3000@gmail.com>:
can you help with fixing it Pavel?

There must be some new preanalyze stage - you have to know result columns before you are starting a analyze

maybe some recheck after analyze stage to remove invalid columns can be good enough.

Regards

Pavel
 

Regards

Pavel

On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 11:48 AM, Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi

fresh update - I enhanced Value node by location field as Tom proposal.

Few more regress tests.

But I found significant issue, that needs bigger fix - Surafel, please, can you fix it.

It crash on 

SELECT 0 AS x1, 1 AS a, 0 AS x2, 2 AS b, 0 AS x3, -1 AS x3 
UNION ALL CORRESPONDING SELECT 4 AS b, 0 AS x4, 3 AS a, 0 AS x6, -1 AS x6 
UNION ALL CORRESPONDING SELECT 0 AS x8, 6 AS b, -100 AS x9;

I'll mark this patch as waiting on author

Regards

Pavel 





pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: logical decoding of two-phase transactions
Next
From: Simon Riggs
Date:
Subject: Re: logical decoding of two-phase transactions