Thread

  1. Re: [HACKERS] views and group by (formerly: create view as selec

    Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> — 1999-05-10T17:31:42Z

    Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
    > I now get.  I am sure it instills confidence in our users:
    > 	ERROR:  union_planner: query is marked hasAggs, but I don't see any
    
    Yes :-(.  I've been waiting for Jan to respond to the issue --- I think
    this is a rewriter problem, so I wanted to know whether he could do
    anything with it.  (See my message "GROUP BY fixes committed" dated
    02 May 1999 20:54:30 -0400.)
    
    It'd be possible to work around this problem inside the planner, by not
    believing what the rewriter says about either resnos or hasAggs, but
    that seems like a kluge rather than a fix.
    
    			regards, tom lane
    
    
  2. Re: [HACKERS] views and group by (formerly: create view as selec

    Jan Wieck <jwieck@debis.com> — 1999-05-10T18:01:24Z

    >
    > Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
    > > I now get.  I am sure it instills confidence in our users:
    > >  ERROR:  union_planner: query is marked hasAggs, but I don't see any
    >
    > Yes :-(.  I've been waiting for Jan to respond to the issue --- I think
    > this is a rewriter problem, so I wanted to know whether he could do
    > anything with it.  (See my message "GROUP BY fixes committed" dated
    > 02 May 1999 20:54:30 -0400.)
    >
    > It'd be possible to work around this problem inside the planner, by not
    > believing what the rewriter says about either resnos or hasAggs, but
    > that seems like a kluge rather than a fix.
    
        Sorry - forgot about that one.
    
        I  think  the best place to check if the query has aggregates
        or not is at the beginning of the planner. The rewrite system
        is  recursive,  and  thus  the  check at the end of one cycle
        doesn't guarantee that it will still be true at  the  end  of
        all rewrites.
    
        OTOH  views  with  aggregates  are very buggy and introducing
        ton's of problems (as the other threads show). I'm  not  sure
        that  it was a good idea to make it partially working :-( for
        v6.4. There was only the advice that they shouldn't be  used.
        Now  it's  a released feature. More and more pressure for the
        subselecting RTE's which are IMHO the only way to solve  that
        all cleanly.
    
        The  other  issue  about the resno's is something that I must
        still search for in the  rewriter.  There  are  bad  problems
        where  it  seems to mangle up not only resno's, it also get's
        lost of  varlevelsup  somehow  and  producing  totally  wrong
        varno's  into  subselects.  Still  problems  coming  from the
        EXCEPT/INTERSECT patch I haven't found so far >:-{
    
    
    Jan
    
    --
    
    #======================================================================#
    # It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
    # Let's break this rule - forgive me.                                  #
    #======================================== jwieck@debis.com (Jan Wieck) #