| From: | Andreas Pflug <pgadmin(at)pse-consulting(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Justin Clift <jc(at)telstra(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Dennis Bjorklund <db(at)zigo(dot)dhs(dot)org>, PostgreSQL Hackers Mailing List <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Subject: | Re: Bug with view definitions? |
| Date: | 2004-07-01 18:13:04 |
| Message-ID: | 40E45430.4040104@pse-consulting.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Justin Clift wrote:
> Dennis Bjorklund wrote:
> <snip>
>
>> I've still not checked any code. I don't even know what part of pg it
>> is that produce that bad SQL. The view itself works, so it must be
>> the pretty printer that is broken (where ever that is hidden away in
>> the code).
>
>
> Thanks Dennis.
>
> So, it's definitely a bug then. I wasn't sure if it was PG or me. :)
The source of information_schema.constraint_column_usage in
backend/catalog/information_schema.sql doesn't have the ORDER BY clause,
but pg_get_viewdef finds one. A quick glance at adt/ruleutils.c doesn't
show an obvious problem, so the inner query somehow acquired a sortClause.
Regards,
Andreas
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Meskes | 2004-07-01 18:34:15 | Re: ecpg glitch in CVS tip |
| Previous Message | Jeroen T. Vermeulen | 2004-07-01 18:10:31 | Re: [Re] Re: PREPARE and transactions |