"Heikki Linnakangas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Here we go. Now that I see it, I do like this approach better.
Hm, the "Assert(rte->subquery != NULL)" doesn't seem right ...
couldn't there be non-RTE_SUBQUERY rtes in the child? I think the
original coding was guaranteed to visit only subquery-
Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
Seriously, I think what this shows is that piecemeal pullup is wrong in
principle, and that the right approach is always to concat the
subquery's rtable in toto to the upper level, and then go from there on
adjusting varnos. Do you want to look into tha
Tom Lane wrote:
Seriously, I think what this shows is that piecemeal pullup is wrong in
principle, and that the right approach is always to concat the
subquery's rtable in toto to the upper level, and then go from there on
adjusting varnos. Do you want to look into that approach?
You mean like
"Heikki Linnakangas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> I think it might be better to fix the problem in
>> pull_up_union_leaf_queries instead; given that it wasn't broken till
>> recently, I think it's arguably that function's fault.
> Not sure what you mean. pull_up_union_leaf_quer
Wow - is that easy! How could I miss that when I thought I read all
documentation and knew that full-text search is catalog/language
dependent?
Many thanks and sorry for wasting your time with such a minor thing -
the difference is indeed amazing as the results are back in a few
hundreds of milli
On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 10:35:26PM -0500, Matthew Dennis wrote:
> In reference to the script below (I know it can be rewritten, that's
> not the point), I get 3 rows if the referenced index exists but only
> two rows if it does not. This is observable and repeatable just by
> dropping/creating the
Tom Lane wrote:
I think it might be better to fix the problem in
pull_up_union_leaf_queries instead; given that it wasn't broken till
recently, I think it's arguably that function's fault.
Not sure what you mean. pull_up_union_leaf_queries was introduced at the
same time as the rest of the log
Tom Lane wrote:
I wrote:
That's one heck of a scary patch: nowhere in list_union's API is there
any guarantee that it preserves list ordering, but we *must not* change
the positions of the existing rtable entries.
Good point.
Actually there's a more fundamental problem, namely that pulled-up
Yep, Magnus was working on pgInstaller bugs last night.
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 4:43 AM, Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Dave, Magnus, did you see this report?
>
> ---
>
> Bob Kuhfahl wrote:
>>
>> The following bu
