Re: SEARCH and CYCLE clauses - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Peter Eisentraut
Subject Re: SEARCH and CYCLE clauses
Date
Msg-id e3db0471-17d9-273f-9f0b-30aae5769c14@2ndquadrant.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: SEARCH and CYCLE clauses  (Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: SEARCH and CYCLE clauses
List pgsql-hackers
On 2020-10-10 07:25, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> This patch is based on transformation CYCLE and SEARCH clauses to 
> specific expressions - it is in agreement with ANSI SQL
> 
> There is not a problem with compilation
> Nobody had objections in discussion
> There are enough regress tests and documentation
> check-world passed
> doc build passed
> 
> I'll mark this patch as ready for committer
> 
> Possible enhancing for this feature (can be done in next steps)
> 
> 1. support UNION DISTINCT
> 2. better compatibility with Oracle and DB2 (USING clause can be optional)

Here is an updated patch.  New since last time:

- UNION DISTINCT is now supported (since hash_record() was added)

- Some code has been cleaned up.

- Some code has been moved from the rewriter to the parser so that 
certain errors are properly detected at parse time.

- Added more syntax checks and more tests.

- Support for dependency tracking was added (the type and operator for 
the cycle mark need to be added as dependencies).

I found a bug that nested UNIONs (foo UNION bar UNION baz) were not 
handled (would crash) in the rewriter code.  For now, I have just 
changed that to error out.  This could be fixed, it would be a localized 
change in the rewriter code in any case.  Doesn't seem important for the 
first pass, though.

-- 
Peter Eisentraut
2ndQuadrant, an EDB company
https://www.2ndquadrant.com/

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Amit Kapila
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] logical decoding of two-phase transactions
Next
From: Yugo NAGATA
Date:
Subject: Re: Implementing Incremental View Maintenance