Re: [HACKERS] TODO list check

From: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] TODO list check
Date: 2000-01-28 03:46:53
Message-ID: 200001280346.WAA08192@candle.pha.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

[Charset ISO-8859-1 unsupported, filtering to ASCII...]
> My last run-through before the apocalypse ...
>
>
> * Disallow inherited columns with the same name as new columns
>
> Either this was just not marked off, or there is some misconception about
> how things should work. E.g.,
> create table a (x int);
> create table b (x text) inherits (a);
> will fail, for obvious reasons.
>
> create table a (x int);
> create table b (x int) inherits (a);
> will not fail, but will create a table b with *one* column x which is the
> one inherited from a. This might be confusing in this context, but what
> about
>
> create table a (x int);
> create table b (y text) inherits (a);
> create table c (z text) inherits (a);
> create table d (q time) inherits (b, c);
>
> In this case you must allow this "column merging" to happen, otherwise
> this whole scheme of inheriting would be impossible. So either the above
> item seems done or we prohibit multiple inheritance.

Removed.

>
>
> * Do not allow bpchar column creation without length
>
> peter=> create table foo (a bpchar);
> CREATE
> peter=> \d foo
> Table "foo"
> Attribute | Type | Extra
> -----------+---------+-------
> a | char(1) |
>
> Looks good to me (and is standard compliant).

Removed.

>
>
> * Update table SET table.value = 3 fails(SQL standard says this is OK)
>
> We agreed that this was definitely not okay by any standard we know of.
> Please remove it.

Removed.

>
>
> * SELECT ... UNION ... ORDER BY fails when sort expr not in result list
>
> Looks good to me:
>
> peter=> select * from test1;
> a | b
> ---+----
> 1 | 11
> 2 | 22
> (2 rows)
>
> peter=> select * from test2;
> a | b
> ---+----
> 3 | 33
> 4 | 44
> (2 rows)
>
> peter=> select a from test1 union select a from test2 order by b;
> a
> ---
> 1
> 2
> 3
> 4
> (4 rows)
>
> Perhaps be more specific?
>

Removed.

>
> * SELECT ... UNION ... GROUP BY fails if column types disagree
>
> Shouldn't it?
>

Removed.

>
> * Allow user to define char1 column
>
> Both of
> create table test (a char);
> create table test (a char(1));
> seem to work.
>

Marked as done.

>
> * Add support for & operator
>
> To do what? I can only see this specified in embedded SQL. More specific
> here as well?

They want to use it for some bitwise stuff. I think we have a bit type
somewhere.

>
>
> * Make Absolutetime/Relativetime int4 because time_t can be int8 on some
> ports
>
> This is done.

Marked as done. I think your copy is a little old because dash marks
appear on my copy.
>
>
> * Make type equivalency apply to aggregates
>
> This is done.
>

Already marked.

>
> * -Add ALTER TABLE DROP/ALTER COLUMN feature
>
> Ain't gonna happen. (Okay, the ALTER COLUMN part is, but not the rest.)
>

I understand, and think it is a shame.

>
> * Add PL/Perl(Mark Hollomon)
>
> I understand this is done as well. Someone might want to incorporate this
> into the build process, as well as add it into createlang.

Marked as done.

>
>
> * Pre-generate lex and yacc output so not required for install
>
> Done.

Marked as done. Thanks for the updates.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

In response to

Responses

  • ONLY vs "*" at 2000-01-28 05:18:47 from Chris Bitmead

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message John Brothers 2000-01-28 03:48:39 Re: [GENERAL] Problem with SELECT on large negative INT4
Previous Message Tom Lane 2000-01-28 03:43:59 Re: [HACKERS] Re: ORDBMS