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
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 |