Re: [HACKERS] WITH clause

2003-12-13 Thread Dennis Bjorklund
On Sat, 13 Dec 2003, Christopher Browne wrote: Unfortunately, this doesn't seem to fit with the way WITH is defined in SQL. How is the WITH construct defined in SQL? -- /Dennis ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 7: don't forget to increase your

Re: [HACKERS] WITH clause

2003-12-13 Thread Hannu Krosing
David Fetter kirjutas R, 12.12.2003 kell 20:13: Kind people, I'm looking to the SQL WITH clause as a way to get better regex support in PostgreSQL. I've been chatting a little bit about this, and here's an idea for a behavior. Implementation details TBD. WITH res = match (x.foo,

Re: [HACKERS] WITH clause

2003-12-13 Thread David Fetter
On Sat, Dec 13, 2003 at 10:58:59PM +0200, Hannu Krosing wrote: David Fetter kirjutas R, 12.12.2003 kell 20:13: Kind people, I'm looking to the SQL WITH clause as a way to get better regex support in PostgreSQL. I've been chatting a little bit about this, and here's an idea for a

Re: [HACKERS] WITH clause

2003-12-13 Thread Hannu Krosing
David Fetter kirjutas L, 13.12.2003 kell 23:17: On Sat, Dec 13, 2003 at 10:58:59PM +0200, Hannu Krosing wrote: David Fetter kirjutas R, 12.12.2003 kell 20:13: Kind people, I'm looking to the SQL WITH clause as a way to get better regex support in PostgreSQL. I've been chatting a

Re: [HACKERS] ORDER BY and DISTINCT ON

2003-12-13 Thread Bruno Wolff III
On Fri, Dec 12, 2003 at 18:39:20 -0500, Neil Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: /* * If the user writes both DISTINCT ON and ORDER BY, then the * two expression lists must match (until one or the other * runs out). Otherwise the ORDER

Re: [HACKERS] WITH clause

2003-12-13 Thread Greg Stark
Hannu Krosing [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: SELECT x.* FROM x, (select match (x.foo, '([0-9]+)x([0-9]+)') from x innerx where innerx.pk = x.pk ) as res HAVING y = get_match_group(res, 2) OR y = get_match_group(res, 3) ; Well you don't need to go fetch from

Re: [HACKERS] ORDER BY and DISTINCT ON

2003-12-13 Thread Greg Stark
Neil Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: We reject the following query: nconway=# create table abc (a int, b int, c int); CREATE TABLE nconway=# select distinct on (a) a, b, c from abc order by b, c, a; ERROR: SELECT DISTINCT ON expressions must match initial ORDER BY expressions What

Re: [HACKERS] Walker/mutator prototype.

2003-12-13 Thread Greg Stark
Kurt Roeckx [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I'm trying to change all the walkers and mutators to have a more strict prototype. I had to do this with lots of casts. I don't really like the idea of having all those generic pointer types (Node * and void *), but currently see no better way to deal

Re: [HACKERS] ORDER BY and DISTINCT ON

2003-12-13 Thread Neil Conway
Greg Stark [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Do you really want: select distinct on (b,c,a) a,b,c from abc order by b,c,a; or is that you want select * from (select distinct on (a) a,b,c order by a) order by b,c,a; If I understand you correctly, I don't think I would expect either. - ORDER BY