Re: [HACKERS] HAVING clause and 6.3.2 release

From: "Jose' Soares Da Silva" <sferac(at)proxy(dot)bazzanese(dot)com>
To: Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org>, ssimkovi(at)rainbow(dot)studorg(dot)tuwien(dot)ac(dot)at
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] HAVING clause and 6.3.2 release
Date: 1998-04-16 15:43:42
Message-ID: Pine.LNX.3.96.980416154122.1086A-100000@proxy.bazzanese.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

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?
>
Don't do that. If you disable it, we can't help you to correct bugs ?
Jose'

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Oliver Elphick 1998-04-16 15:55:06 Constraints and inheritance
Previous Message Tom Lane 1998-04-16 15:35:44 Re: [HACKERS] Anyone working on asynchronous NOTIFY reception?