Re: [VOTE] [PATCH] Intersect and Except

[Jack Klebanoff <kl...@Mutagen.Net>]

Satheesh Bandaram wrote:

> I am submitting this patch for a VOTE. It has been pending for about a 
> week. My vote is "+1", with the following comments. Since this is a 
> new feature, I think, three +1 votes are requied. Here is the status 
> of this patch. I am basically waiting for the final +1 vote....
>
>    1. It passed build and all tests.
>    2. Mike and myself have voted +1.
>    3. Dan provided a suggestion, with some syntax improvement. Any 
> response from the contributor? I am assuming Dan's vote is a +1. If 
> not, please speak up.. :-)
>
> Here are my comments:
>
>    1. IntersectOrExceptNode still refers to SetOpProjectRestrict. 
> Should this be SetOpResultSet?
>    2. Doesn't tableConstructor logic apply only to UnionNode? If so, 
> should the fields like tableConstructor, topTableConstructor and 
> methods like setTableConstructorTypes() be moved to UnionNode? Current 
> code in SetOperatorNode refers to subclass UnionNode a lot, which 
> could be improved?
>
Satheesh, I think that you are right on both points. 
IntersectOrExceptNode should refer to SetOpResultSet instead of 
SetOpProjectRestrict.

 From reading the code I gather that the tableConstructor field is used 
to mark a Union node that is generated from a VALUES expression that has 
more than one row. So, while the expression (t1 INTERSECT t2) sonstructs 
a table, it will never be a "tableConstructor" in the narrower sense 
used by our code.

I will change the code accordingly and submit a new patch. It should be 
ready today or first thing tomorrow morning.

Jack