pg.ddx.io pgsql-sql@postgresql.org mailing list archive
help / color / mirror / Atom feedproblem (bug?) with "in (subquery)"
7+ messages / 4 participants
[nested] [flat]
* problem (bug?) with "in (subquery)"
@ 2005-07-14 07:34 Luca Pireddu <luca@cs.ualberta.ca>
0 siblings, 2 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Luca Pireddu @ 2005-07-14 07:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: pgsql-sql
I have the following query that isn't behaving like I would expect:
select * from strains s where s.id in (select strain_id from pathway_strains);
I would expect each strain record to appear only once. Instead I get output
like this, where the same strain id appears many times:
id | name | organism
-------+--------------+----------
83 | common | 82
83 | common | 82
83 | common | 82
83 | common | 82
83 | common | 82
83 | common | 82
83 | common | 82
83 | common | 82
83 | common | 82
83 | common | 82
506 | common | 487
506 | common | 487
... continues
By the way, this output is the same as if running the query:
select * from strains s join pathway_strains ps on ps.strain_id = s.id;
=====================================
Table "public.strains"
Column | Type | Modifiers
---------------+--------------+---------------------------------------------------------
id | integer | not null
name | text | not null default 'common'::text
organism | integer | not null
Indexes:
"strains_pkey" PRIMARY KEY, btree (id)
==================================
View "public.pathway_strains"
Column | Type | Modifiers
------------+---------+-----------
pathway_id | integer |
strain_id | integer |
View definition:
SELECT DISTINCT p.id AS pathway_id, c.strain_id
FROM catalyst_associations c
JOIN pathway_edges e ON c.pathway_edge_id = e.id
RIGHT JOIN pathways p ON p.id = e.pathway_id
ORDER BY p.id, c.strain_id;
The contents of pathways_strains are like
pathway_id | strain_id
------------+-----------
2083 | 76
2083 | 80
2083 | 83
2083 | 95
2084 | 76
2084 | 80
2084 | 83
2084 | 95
2084 | 162
...etc
So, am I wrong in expecting each strain record to appear only once in the
result set? Or is there something wrong with PostgreSQL? I would be happy
to provide more information if it's needed.
Thank you!
Luca
ps: # select version();
version
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PostgreSQL 8.0.3 on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, compiled by GCC gcc (GCC) 3.2.3
20030502 (Red Hat Linux 3.2.3-42)
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: problem (bug?) with "in (subquery)"
@ 2005-07-15 13:34 Michael Fuhr <mike@fuhr.org>
parent: Luca Pireddu <luca@cs.ualberta.ca>
1 sibling, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: Michael Fuhr @ 2005-07-15 13:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Luca Pireddu <luca@cs.ualberta.ca>; +Cc: pgsql-sql
On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 01:34:21AM -0600, Luca Pireddu wrote:
> I have the following query that isn't behaving like I would expect:
>
> select * from strains s where s.id in (select strain_id from pathway_strains);
Any reason the subquery isn't doing "SELECT DISTINCT strain_id"?
> I would expect each strain record to appear only once. Instead I get output
> like this, where the same strain id appears many times:
>
> id | name | organism
> -------+--------------+----------
> 83 | common | 82
> 83 | common | 82
> 83 | common | 82
What happens when you try each of the following? Do they give the
expected results? I did some tests and I'm wondering if the planner's
hash join is responsible for the duplicate rows.
SELECT * FROM strains WHERE id IN (
SELECT strain_id FROM pathway_strains ORDER BY strain_id
);
CREATE TEMPORARY TABLE foo AS SELECT strain_id FROM pathway_strains;
SELECT * FROM strains WHERE id IN (SELECT strain_id FROM foo);
SET enable_hashjoin TO off;
SELECT * FROM strains WHERE id IN (SELECT strain_id FROM pathway_strains);
--
Michael Fuhr
http://www.fuhr.org/~mfuhr/
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: problem (bug?) with "in (subquery)"
@ 2005-07-15 13:59 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
parent: Luca Pireddu <luca@cs.ualberta.ca>
1 sibling, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: Tom Lane @ 2005-07-15 13:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Luca Pireddu <luca@cs.ualberta.ca>; +Cc: pgsql-sql
Luca Pireddu <luca@cs.ualberta.ca> writes:
> So, am I wrong in expecting each strain record to appear only once in the
> result set? Or is there something wrong with PostgreSQL?
Could we see a self-contained example (table definitions and sample data
as a SQL script)? I don't really have time to reverse-engineer a test
case from your description ...
regards, tom lane
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: problem (bug?) with "in (subquery)"
@ 2005-07-15 14:10 Michael Fuhr <mike@fuhr.org>
parent: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: Michael Fuhr @ 2005-07-15 14:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>; +Cc: Luca Pireddu <luca@cs.ualberta.ca>; pgsql-sql
On Fri, Jul 15, 2005 at 09:59:27AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Luca Pireddu <luca@cs.ualberta.ca> writes:
> > So, am I wrong in expecting each strain record to appear only once in the
> > result set? Or is there something wrong with PostgreSQL?
>
> Could we see a self-contained example (table definitions and sample data
> as a SQL script)? I don't really have time to reverse-engineer a test
> case from your description ...
I've been reverse-engineering and simplifying this. Here's something
that I think is close:
CREATE TABLE foo (id integer);
CREATE TABLE bar (id1 integer, id2 integer);
INSERT INTO foo VALUES (1);
INSERT INTO bar VALUES (1, 1);
INSERT INTO bar VALUES (2, 2);
INSERT INTO bar VALUES (3, 1);
SELECT *
FROM foo
WHERE id IN (SELECT id2 FROM (SELECT DISTINCT id1, id2 FROM bar) AS s);
id
----
1
1
(2 rows)
SELECT *
FROM foo
WHERE id IN (SELECT id2 FROM (SELECT id1, id2 FROM bar) AS s);
id
----
1
(1 row)
8.0.3 and HEAD behave as shown. 7.4.8, 7.3.10, and 7.2.8 return a
single row for both queries.
--
Michael Fuhr
http://www.fuhr.org/~mfuhr/
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: problem (bug?) with "in (subquery)"
@ 2005-07-15 14:58 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
parent: Michael Fuhr <mike@fuhr.org>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Tom Lane @ 2005-07-15 14:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Michael Fuhr <mike@fuhr.org>; +Cc: Luca Pireddu <luca@cs.ualberta.ca>; pgsql-sql
Michael Fuhr <mike@fuhr.org> writes:
> I've been reverse-engineering and simplifying this. Here's something
> that I think is close:
> CREATE TABLE foo (id integer);
> CREATE TABLE bar (id1 integer, id2 integer);
> INSERT INTO foo VALUES (1);
> INSERT INTO bar VALUES (1, 1);
> INSERT INTO bar VALUES (2, 2);
> INSERT INTO bar VALUES (3, 1);
> SELECT *
> FROM foo
> WHERE id IN (SELECT id2 FROM (SELECT DISTINCT id1, id2 FROM bar) AS s);
> id
> ----
> 1
> 1
> (2 rows)
Ah-hah: this one is the fault of create_unique_path, which quoth
/*
* If the input is a subquery whose output must be unique already, we
* don't need to do anything.
*/
Of course, that needs to read "... unique already, *and we are using all
of its output columns in our DISTINCT list*, we don't need to do
anything."
regards, tom lane
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: problem (bug?) with "in (subquery)"
@ 2005-07-15 15:52 Luca Pireddu <lucap@shaw.ca>
parent: Michael Fuhr <mike@fuhr.org>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: Luca Pireddu @ 2005-07-15 15:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: pgsql-sql; +Cc: Michael Fuhr <mike@fuhr.org>; Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
On July 15, 2005 07:34, Michael Fuhr wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 01:34:21AM -0600, Luca Pireddu wrote:
> > I have the following query that isn't behaving like I would expect:
Thanks for creating the reduced test case Michael. My apologies for not doing
it myself.
> >
> > select * from strains s where s.id in (select strain_id from
pathway_strains);
>
> Any reason the subquery isn't doing "SELECT DISTINCT strain_id"?
because I don't need to according to the specification of "in". However, it
does generate the correct output. So does
select distinct * from strains s where s.id in (select strain_id from
pathway_strains);
>
> > I would expect each strain record to appear only once. Instead I get
output
> > like this, where the same strain id appears many times:
> >
> > id | name | organism
> > -------+--------------+----------
> > 83 | common | 82
> > 83 | common | 82
> > 83 | common | 82
>
> What happens when you try each of the following? Do they give the
> expected results? I did some tests and I'm wondering if the planner's
> hash join is responsible for the duplicate rows.
>
> SELECT * FROM strains WHERE id IN (
> SELECT strain_id FROM pathway_strains ORDER BY strain_id
> );
With the "order by" it works as it should, not generating duplicate rows.
>
> CREATE TEMPORARY TABLE foo AS SELECT strain_id FROM pathway_strains;
> SELECT * FROM strains WHERE id IN (SELECT strain_id FROM foo);
This one's interesting. It only returns the unique rows.
>
> SET enable_hashjoin TO off;
> SELECT * FROM strains WHERE id IN (SELECT strain_id FROM pathway_strains);
With hashjoin off the query returns the correct output.
On July 15, 2005 08:58, Tom Lane wrote:
> Ah-hah: this one is the fault of create_unique_path, which quoth
>
> /*
> * If the input is a subquery whose output must be unique already, we
> * don't need to do anything.
> */
>
> Of course, that needs to read "... unique already, *and we are using all
> of its output columns in our DISTINCT list*, we don't need to do
> anything."
>
> regards, tom lane
In any case, it looks like Tom has already found the problem :-) Thanks guys!
Luca
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: problem (bug?) with "in (subquery)"
@ 2005-07-15 17:12 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
parent: Luca Pireddu <lucap@shaw.ca>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Tom Lane @ 2005-07-15 17:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Luca Pireddu <lucap@shaw.ca>; +Cc: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org, Michael Fuhr <mike@fuhr.org>
Luca Pireddu <lucap@shaw.ca> writes:
> On July 15, 2005 08:58, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Ah-hah: this one is the fault of create_unique_path, which quoth
> In any case, it looks like Tom has already found the problem :-) Thanks guys!
On closer analysis, the test in create_unique_path is almost but not
quite completely wrong :-(. Here is the patch against 8.0 branch,
if you need it right away.
regards, tom lane
inline patch 1: src/backend/optimizer/util/pathnode.c, src/test/regress/expected/subselect.out, src/test/regress/sql/subselect.sql (+218/-44 lines) download inline-1.patch
Index: src/backend/optimizer/util/pathnode.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvsroot/pgsql/src/backend/optimizer/util/pathnode.c,v
retrieving revision 1.111
diff -c -r1.111 pathnode.c
*** src/backend/optimizer/util/pathnode.c 31 Dec 2004 22:00:23 -0000 1.111
--- src/backend/optimizer/util/pathnode.c 15 Jul 2005 17:03:06 -0000
***************
*** 34,40 ****
#include "utils/syscache.h"
! static bool is_distinct_query(Query *query);
static bool hash_safe_tlist(List *tlist);
--- 34,41 ----
#include "utils/syscache.h"
! static List *translate_sub_tlist(List *tlist, int relid);
! static bool query_is_distinct_for(Query *query, List *colnos);
static bool hash_safe_tlist(List *tlist);
***************
*** 642,655 ****
pathnode->subpath = subpath;
/*
! * If the input is a subquery whose output must be unique already, we
! * don't need to do anything.
*/
! if (rel->rtekind == RTE_SUBQUERY)
{
RangeTblEntry *rte = rt_fetch(rel->relid, root->rtable);
! if (is_distinct_query(rte->subquery))
{
pathnode->umethod = UNIQUE_PATH_NOOP;
pathnode->rows = rel->rows;
--- 643,683 ----
pathnode->subpath = subpath;
/*
! * Try to identify the targetlist that will actually be unique-ified.
! * In current usage, this routine is only used for sub-selects of IN
! * clauses, so we should be able to find the tlist in in_info_list.
! */
! sub_targetlist = NIL;
! foreach(l, root->in_info_list)
! {
! InClauseInfo *ininfo = (InClauseInfo *) lfirst(l);
!
! if (bms_equal(ininfo->righthand, rel->relids))
! {
! sub_targetlist = ininfo->sub_targetlist;
! break;
! }
! }
!
! /*
! * If the input is a subquery whose output must be unique already,
! * then we don't need to do anything. The test for uniqueness has
! * to consider exactly which columns we are extracting; for example
! * "SELECT DISTINCT x,y" doesn't guarantee that x alone is distinct.
! * So we cannot check for this optimization unless we found our own
! * targetlist above, and it consists only of simple Vars referencing
! * subquery outputs. (Possibly we could do something with expressions
! * in the subquery outputs, too, but for now keep it simple.)
*/
! if (sub_targetlist && rel->rtekind == RTE_SUBQUERY)
{
RangeTblEntry *rte = rt_fetch(rel->relid, root->rtable);
+ List *sub_tlist_colnos;
! sub_tlist_colnos = translate_sub_tlist(sub_targetlist, rel->relid);
!
! if (sub_tlist_colnos &&
! query_is_distinct_for(rte->subquery, sub_tlist_colnos))
{
pathnode->umethod = UNIQUE_PATH_NOOP;
pathnode->rows = rel->rows;
***************
*** 664,686 ****
}
/*
- * Try to identify the targetlist that will actually be unique-ified.
- * In current usage, this routine is only used for sub-selects of IN
- * clauses, so we should be able to find the tlist in in_info_list.
- */
- sub_targetlist = NIL;
- foreach(l, root->in_info_list)
- {
- InClauseInfo *ininfo = (InClauseInfo *) lfirst(l);
-
- if (bms_equal(ininfo->righthand, rel->relids))
- {
- sub_targetlist = ininfo->sub_targetlist;
- break;
- }
- }
-
- /*
* If we know the targetlist, try to estimate number of result rows;
* otherwise punt.
*/
--- 692,697 ----
***************
*** 755,804 ****
}
/*
! * is_distinct_query - does query never return duplicate rows?
*/
! static bool
! is_distinct_query(Query *query)
{
! /* DISTINCT (but not DISTINCT ON) guarantees uniqueness */
! if (has_distinct_clause(query))
! return true;
! /* UNION, INTERSECT, EXCEPT guarantee uniqueness, except with ALL */
! if (query->setOperations)
{
! SetOperationStmt *topop = (SetOperationStmt *) query->setOperations;
! Assert(IsA(topop, SetOperationStmt));
! Assert(topop->op != SETOP_NONE);
! if (!topop->all)
return true;
}
/*
! * GROUP BY guarantees uniqueness if all the grouped columns appear in
! * the output. In our implementation this means checking they are non
! * resjunk columns.
*/
if (query->groupClause)
{
! ListCell *gl;
!
! foreach(gl, query->groupClause)
{
! GroupClause *grpcl = (GroupClause *) lfirst(gl);
TargetEntry *tle = get_sortgroupclause_tle(grpcl,
query->targetList);
! if (tle->resdom->resjunk)
! break;
}
! if (!gl) /* got to the end? */
return true;
}
/*
* XXX Are there any other cases in which we can easily see the result
* must be distinct?
*/
--- 766,888 ----
}
/*
! * translate_sub_tlist - get subquery column numbers represented by tlist
! *
! * The given targetlist should contain only Vars referencing the given relid.
! * Extract their varattnos (ie, the column numbers of the subquery) and return
! * as an integer List.
! *
! * If any of the tlist items is not a simple Var, we cannot determine whether
! * the subquery's uniqueness condition (if any) matches ours, so punt and
! * return NIL.
*/
! static List *
! translate_sub_tlist(List *tlist, int relid)
{
! List *result = NIL;
! ListCell *l;
! foreach(l, tlist)
{
! Var *var = (Var *) lfirst(l);
! if (!var || !IsA(var, Var) ||
! var->varno != relid)
! return NIL; /* punt */
! result = lappend_int(result, var->varattno);
! }
! return result;
! }
!
! /*
! * query_is_distinct_for - does query never return duplicates of the
! * specified columns?
! *
! * colnos is an integer list of output column numbers (resno's). We are
! * interested in whether rows consisting of just these columns are certain
! * to be distinct.
! */
! static bool
! query_is_distinct_for(Query *query, List *colnos)
! {
! ListCell *l;
!
! /*
! * DISTINCT (including DISTINCT ON) guarantees uniqueness if all the
! * columns in the DISTINCT clause appear in colnos.
! */
! if (query->distinctClause)
! {
! foreach(l, query->distinctClause)
! {
! SortClause *scl = (SortClause *) lfirst(l);
! TargetEntry *tle = get_sortgroupclause_tle(scl,
! query->targetList);
!
! if (!list_member_int(colnos, tle->resdom->resno))
! break; /* exit early if no match */
! }
! if (l == NULL) /* had matches for all? */
return true;
}
/*
! * Similarly, GROUP BY guarantees uniqueness if all the grouped columns
! * appear in colnos.
*/
if (query->groupClause)
{
! foreach(l, query->groupClause)
{
! GroupClause *grpcl = (GroupClause *) lfirst(l);
TargetEntry *tle = get_sortgroupclause_tle(grpcl,
query->targetList);
! if (!list_member_int(colnos, tle->resdom->resno))
! break; /* exit early if no match */
}
! if (l == NULL) /* had matches for all? */
! return true;
! }
! else
! {
! /*
! * If we have no GROUP BY, but do have aggregates or HAVING, then
! * the result is at most one row so it's surely unique.
! */
! if (query->hasAggs || query->havingQual)
return true;
}
/*
+ * UNION, INTERSECT, EXCEPT guarantee uniqueness of the whole output row,
+ * except with ALL
+ */
+ if (query->setOperations)
+ {
+ SetOperationStmt *topop = (SetOperationStmt *) query->setOperations;
+
+ Assert(IsA(topop, SetOperationStmt));
+ Assert(topop->op != SETOP_NONE);
+
+ if (!topop->all)
+ {
+ /* We're good if all the nonjunk output columns are in colnos */
+ foreach(l, query->targetList)
+ {
+ TargetEntry *tle = (TargetEntry *) lfirst(l);
+
+ if (!tle->resdom->resjunk &&
+ !list_member_int(colnos, tle->resdom->resno))
+ break; /* exit early if no match */
+ }
+ if (l == NULL) /* had matches for all? */
+ return true;
+ }
+ }
+
+ /*
* XXX Are there any other cases in which we can easily see the result
* must be distinct?
*/
Index: src/test/regress/expected/subselect.out
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvsroot/pgsql/src/test/regress/expected/subselect.out,v
retrieving revision 1.10.4.2
diff -c -r1.10.4.2 subselect.out
*** src/test/regress/expected/subselect.out 1 Feb 2005 23:09:00 -0000 1.10.4.2
--- src/test/regress/expected/subselect.out 15 Jul 2005 17:03:06 -0000
***************
*** 203,208 ****
--- 203,265 ----
(1 row)
--
+ -- Test cases to check for overenthusiastic optimization of
+ -- "IN (SELECT DISTINCT ...)" and related cases. Per example from
+ -- Luca Pireddu and Michael Fuhr.
+ --
+ CREATE TEMP TABLE foo (id integer);
+ CREATE TEMP TABLE bar (id1 integer, id2 integer);
+ INSERT INTO foo VALUES (1);
+ INSERT INTO bar VALUES (1, 1);
+ INSERT INTO bar VALUES (2, 2);
+ INSERT INTO bar VALUES (3, 1);
+ -- These cases require an extra level of distinct-ing above subquery s
+ SELECT * FROM foo WHERE id IN
+ (SELECT id2 FROM (SELECT DISTINCT id1, id2 FROM bar) AS s);
+ id
+ ----
+ 1
+ (1 row)
+
+ SELECT * FROM foo WHERE id IN
+ (SELECT id2 FROM (SELECT id1,id2 FROM bar GROUP BY id1,id2) AS s);
+ id
+ ----
+ 1
+ (1 row)
+
+ SELECT * FROM foo WHERE id IN
+ (SELECT id2 FROM (SELECT id1, id2 FROM bar UNION
+ SELECT id1, id2 FROM bar) AS s);
+ id
+ ----
+ 1
+ (1 row)
+
+ -- These cases do not
+ SELECT * FROM foo WHERE id IN
+ (SELECT id2 FROM (SELECT DISTINCT ON (id2) id1, id2 FROM bar) AS s);
+ id
+ ----
+ 1
+ (1 row)
+
+ SELECT * FROM foo WHERE id IN
+ (SELECT id2 FROM (SELECT id2 FROM bar GROUP BY id2) AS s);
+ id
+ ----
+ 1
+ (1 row)
+
+ SELECT * FROM foo WHERE id IN
+ (SELECT id2 FROM (SELECT id2 FROM bar UNION
+ SELECT id2 FROM bar) AS s);
+ id
+ ----
+ 1
+ (1 row)
+
+ --
-- Test case to catch problems with multiply nested sub-SELECTs not getting
-- recalculated properly. Per bug report from Didier Moens.
--
Index: src/test/regress/sql/subselect.sql
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvsroot/pgsql/src/test/regress/sql/subselect.sql,v
retrieving revision 1.7
diff -c -r1.7 subselect.sql
*** src/test/regress/sql/subselect.sql 4 Oct 2004 14:42:48 -0000 1.7
--- src/test/regress/sql/subselect.sql 15 Jul 2005 17:03:06 -0000
***************
*** 96,101 ****
--- 96,134 ----
where unique1 IN (select distinct hundred from tenk1 b)) ss;
--
+ -- Test cases to check for overenthusiastic optimization of
+ -- "IN (SELECT DISTINCT ...)" and related cases. Per example from
+ -- Luca Pireddu and Michael Fuhr.
+ --
+
+ CREATE TEMP TABLE foo (id integer);
+ CREATE TEMP TABLE bar (id1 integer, id2 integer);
+
+ INSERT INTO foo VALUES (1);
+
+ INSERT INTO bar VALUES (1, 1);
+ INSERT INTO bar VALUES (2, 2);
+ INSERT INTO bar VALUES (3, 1);
+
+ -- These cases require an extra level of distinct-ing above subquery s
+ SELECT * FROM foo WHERE id IN
+ (SELECT id2 FROM (SELECT DISTINCT id1, id2 FROM bar) AS s);
+ SELECT * FROM foo WHERE id IN
+ (SELECT id2 FROM (SELECT id1,id2 FROM bar GROUP BY id1,id2) AS s);
+ SELECT * FROM foo WHERE id IN
+ (SELECT id2 FROM (SELECT id1, id2 FROM bar UNION
+ SELECT id1, id2 FROM bar) AS s);
+
+ -- These cases do not
+ SELECT * FROM foo WHERE id IN
+ (SELECT id2 FROM (SELECT DISTINCT ON (id2) id1, id2 FROM bar) AS s);
+ SELECT * FROM foo WHERE id IN
+ (SELECT id2 FROM (SELECT id2 FROM bar GROUP BY id2) AS s);
+ SELECT * FROM foo WHERE id IN
+ (SELECT id2 FROM (SELECT id2 FROM bar UNION
+ SELECT id2 FROM bar) AS s);
+
+ --
-- Test case to catch problems with multiply nested sub-SELECTs not getting
-- recalculated properly. Per bug report from Didier Moens.
--
end of thread, other threads:[~2005-07-15 17:12 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages (download: mbox mbox.gz follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2005-07-14 07:34 problem (bug?) with "in (subquery)" Luca Pireddu <luca@cs.ualberta.ca>
2005-07-15 13:34 ` Michael Fuhr <mike@fuhr.org>
2005-07-15 15:52 ` Luca Pireddu <lucap@shaw.ca>
2005-07-15 17:12 ` Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
2005-07-15 13:59 ` Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
2005-07-15 14:10 ` Michael Fuhr <mike@fuhr.org>
2005-07-15 14:58 ` Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox