On Thu, 16 Apr 1998, The Hermit Hacker wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Apr 1998, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> > Attached is a list of bug reports for the HAVING clause.
> >
> > My question is, "Do we disable the HAVING clause for 6.3.2?" The bugs
> > are serious and cause crashes.
> >
> > I have looked at the issues, and the basic problems are that the
> > aggregate logic expects to be attached to an actual field in the target
> > list, and the HAVING clause does not properly handle non-aggregate
> > retrictions, nor does it prevent them. COUNT(*) uses the oid of the
> > first FROM table, so that is a problem too.
> >
> > I have looked at the code, but don't have time to fix it before Friday,
> > and holding up the release for that would be silly. I don't think there
> > is one thing wrong, but several places that have to be change to get
> > this working solidly.
> >
> > Do we disable it?
>
> Yes...but disabling means that it *will not* be available until
> v6.4...no v6.3.3 :)
>
>
What about including it as an optional feature by defining something like
/* #define BUGGY_HAVING_CLAUSE */
Marc Zuckman
marc@fallon.classyad.com
_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
_ Visit The Home and Condo MarketPlace _
_ http://www.ClassyAd.com _
_ _
_ FREE basic property listings/advertisements and searches. _
_ _
_ Try our premium, yet inexpensive services for a real _
_ selling or buying edge! _
_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
