Details
Description
The wrong result started appearing on 5.3 tree since the following revision:
revno: 3676 [merge]
revision-id: igor@askmonty.org-20130815235920-io2h7tlypwlbunsp
parent: igor@askmonty.org-20130815210420-l2lr4dhln2li77iy
parent: igor@askmonty.org-20130815211616-80di8in2ae5fttxd
committer: Igor Babaev <igor@askmonty.org>
branch nick: maria-5.3
timestamp: Thu 2013-08-15 16:59:20 -0700
message:
Merge
------------------------------------------------------------
revno: 3669.1.1
revision-id: igor@askmonty.org-20130815211616-80di8in2ae5fttxd
parent: bar@mariadb.org-20130709070256-0evtbj6foe8za239
committer: Igor Babaev <igor@askmonty.org>
branch nick: maria-5.3-bugs
timestamp: Thu 2013-08-15 14:16:16 -0700
message:
Fixed bug mdev-4355.
This patch almost totally revised the patch for bug mdev-4177.
The latter had too many defects. In particular, it did not
propagate multiple equalities formed when merging a degenerate
disjunct into underlying AND formula.
Test case:
CREATE TABLE t1 (i1 INT, INDEX(i1)); INSERT INTO t1 VALUES (9),(8); CREATE TABLE t2 (i2 INT); INSERT INTO t2 VALUES (8),(4); SELECT MAX( t1a.i1 ) FROM t1 AS t1a, t2, t1 AS t1b WHERE t1b.i1 = i2 AND ( 0 OR t1a.i1 = i2 );
Actual result:
MAX( t1a.i1 ) 9
Expected result:
MAX( t1a.i1 ) 8
Gliffy Diagrams
Attachments
Activity
- All
- Comments
- Work Log
- History
- Activity
- Transitions
The fix for the bug was pushed into the 5.3 tree and merged into the 5.5 tree