Re: [HACKERS] HAVING clause and 6.3.2 release

On Thu, 16 Apr 1998, The Hermit Hacker wrote:

> 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?
>
>     Yes...but disabling means that it *will not* be available until
> v6.4...no v6.3.3 :)
>
>
What about including it as an optional feature by defining something like

/* #define BUGGY_HAVING_CLAUSE */

Marc Zuckman
marc@fallon.classyad.com

_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
_     Visit The Home and Condo MarketPlace              _
_          http://www.ClassyAd.com                  _
_                                  _
_  FREE basic property listings/advertisements and searches.  _
_                                  _
_  Try our premium, yet inexpensive services for a real          _
_   selling or buying edge!                      _
_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_