Re: ERROR: Failed to build any 5-way joins

Hi all,

I've just run into the above error (with the additional message "SQL
state XX000"). I see from the following thread from 2003 -

http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-sql/2003-12/msg00111.php

- that at the time it was considered a bug. I'm wondering if it was
fixed, or am I doing something silly? I'm on 8.2.3 on WinXP.

I can supply the schema and some sample data if people would like to see
them, but the short version is that I'm trying to do a LEFT JOIN between
two views, each of which has further joins within it, both inner and
outer (two in one view, three in the other).

Funny thing is, when I change the join (between the views) either to an
INNER JOIN or a RIGHT JOIN, the query works - it only goes belly-up when
I try a LEFT JOIN.

Thanks in advance for your help.

Ray.

---------------------------------------------------------------
Raymond O'Donnell, Director of Music, Galway Cathedral, Ireland
rod(at)iol(dot)ie
---------------------------------------------------------------

"Raymond O'Donnell" <rod(at)iol(dot)ie> writes:
> I've just run into the above error (with the additional message "SQL
> state XX000").
> Funny thing is, when I change the join (between the views) either to an
> INNER JOIN or a RIGHT JOIN, the query works - it only goes belly-up when
> I try a LEFT JOIN.

This sounds like a known bug in 8.2.x --- it's fixed for 8.2.4. If
you can still reproduce it with 8.2.4, please provide the test case.

regards, tom lane

On Apr 21, 2007, at 3:41 PM, Tom Lane wrote:

> "Raymond O'Donnell" <rod(at)iol(dot)ie> writes:
>> I've just run into the above error (with the additional message "SQL
>> state XX000").
>> Funny thing is, when I change the join (between the views) either
>> to an
>> INNER JOIN or a RIGHT JOIN, the query works - it only goes belly-
>> up when
>> I try a LEFT JOIN.
>
> This sounds like a known bug in 8.2.x --- it's fixed for 8.2.4. If
> you can still reproduce it with 8.2.4, please provide the test case.

Any guesses on the timeframe for packaging 8.2.4?

Cheers,
Steve

Steve Atkins wrote:
>
> On Apr 21, 2007, at 3:41 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>
>> "Raymond O'Donnell" <rod(at)iol(dot)ie> writes:
>>> I've just run into the above error (with the additional message "SQL
>>> state XX000").
>>> Funny thing is, when I change the join (between the views) either to an
>>> INNER JOIN or a RIGHT JOIN, the query works - it only goes belly-up when
>>> I try a LEFT JOIN.
>>
>> This sounds like a known bug in 8.2.x --- it's fixed for 8.2.4. If
>> you can still reproduce it with 8.2.4, please provide the test case.
>
> Any guesses on the timeframe for packaging 8.2.4?

ftp://ftp9.us.postgresql.org/pub/mirrors/postgresql/v8.2.4

>
> Cheers,
> Steve
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
>

--

=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
http://www.commandprompt.com/

Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/

On 21/04/2007 23:41, Tom Lane wrote:

> This sounds like a known bug in 8.2.x --- it's fixed for 8.2.4. If
> you can still reproduce it with 8.2.4, please provide the test case.

Hi Tom, thanks for the response.

I must have missed it, but when was 8.2.4 released? I don't recall any
announcement, and the website still says that 8.2.3 is the latest version.

I'll download 8.2.4 tomorrow and report back on how I get on....

Ray.

---------------------------------------------------------------
Raymond O'Donnell, Director of Music, Galway Cathedral, Ireland
rod(at)iol(dot)ie
---------------------------------------------------------------

> > This sounds like a known bug in 8.2.x --- it's fixed for 8.2.4. If
> > you can still reproduce it with 8.2.4, please provide the test case.
>
> Hi Tom, thanks for the response.
>
> I must have missed it, but when was 8.2.4 released? I don't recall any
> announcement, and the website still says that 8.2.3 is the latest version.

it's not officially released yet, but it will be very soon.

/Magnus

On 21/04/2007 23:41, Tom Lane wrote:

> This sounds like a known bug in 8.2.x --- it's fixed for 8.2.4. If
> you can still reproduce it with 8.2.4, please provide the test case.

Hi Tom,

I've tried it on 8.2.4 and all seems to be well now. Thanks!

Ray.

---------------------------------------------------------------
Raymond O'Donnell, Director of Music, Galway Cathedral, Ireland
rod(at)iol(dot)ie
---------------------------------------------------------------

On Sun, 2007-04-22 at 17:50, Raymond O'Donnell wrote:
> On 21/04/2007 23:41, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> > This sounds like a known bug in 8.2.x --- it's fixed for 8.2.4. If
> > you can still reproduce it with 8.2.4, please provide the test case.
>
> Hi Tom, thanks for the response.
>
> I must have missed it, but when was 8.2.4 released? I don't recall any
> announcement, and the website still says that 8.2.3 is the latest version.
>
> I'll download 8.2.4 tomorrow and report back on how I get on....

If I remember correctly, after a few "where's this new release" snafus,
the order of the day now is to silently release the new version,
announcing it on -hackers only, until all the ftp mirrors have updated,
then to announce it publicly when all the copies have been made.

I think.

> > I must have missed it, but when was 8.2.4 released? I don't recall any
> > announcement, and the website still says that 8.2.3 is the latest version.
> >
> > I'll download 8.2.4 tomorrow and report back on how I get on....
>
> If I remember correctly, after a few "where's this new release" snafus,
> the order of the day now is to silently release the new version,
> announcing it on -hackers only, until all the ftp mirrors have updated,
> then to announce it publicly when all the copies have been made.
>
> I think.

correct. the wait is also for the official binary distributions to be packaged.

/Magnus

"Magnus Hagander" <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> writes:
>> If I remember correctly, after a few "where's this new release" snafus,
>> the order of the day now is to silently release the new version,
>> announcing it on -hackers only, until all the ftp mirrors have updated,
>> then to announce it publicly when all the copies have been made.

> correct. the wait is also for the official binary distributions to be packaged.

Yah. The actual process for the last few updates has involved wrapping
the "master source" tarballs on a Thursday evening with public
announcement the next Monday. This gives a couple of days for the RPM
and Windows packagers to do their thing, then another 24 hours or so
for the various mirrors to pick up the files before we announce. This
over-the-weekend schedule isn't set in concrete, but it seems to be
convenient for most of the packagers at the moment.

While there's no need to hide a simple bug-fix update, it's widely
considered important that security issues not become public before a fix
is available. This just-completed cycle was embarrassingly leaky, in
that there was a whole lot of unintended public evidence that a security
release was about to happen. We have all the policies and procedures in
place, but we seem to need a bit more practice at executing them...

regards, tom lane