type assertion.
The bug was introduced by the patch for bug #16377.
The "+ INTERVAL" (Item_date_add_interval) function detects its result type
by the type of its first argument. But in some cases it returns STRING
as the result type. This happens when, for example, the first argument is a
DATE represented as string. All this makes the get_datetime_value()
function misinterpret such result and return wrong DATE/DATETIME value.
To avoid such cases in the fix for #16377 the code that detects correct result
field type on the first execution was added to the
Item_date_add_interval::get_date() function. Due to this the result
field type of the Item_date_add_interval item stored by the send_fields()
function differs from item's result field type at the moment when
the item is actually sent. It causes an assertion failure.
Now the get_datetime_value() detects that the DATE value is returned by
some item not only by checking the result field type but also by comparing
the returned value with the 100000000L constant - any DATE value should be
less than this value.
Removed result field type adjusting code from the
Item_date_add_interval::get_date() function.
- Type casting was not consequent, thus when adding a DATE type with
a WEEK interval the result type was DATETIME and not DATE as is the
norm.
- By changing the order of the date internal enumerations the deviant
type casting is resolved (Item_date_add_interval::fix_length_and_dec()
which determines result type for this operation assumes that addition
of any interval with value <= INTERVAL_DAY to date value will result
in date). There are two independant places to change:
interval_names[] and interval_type.
- Print warning that says display width is not supported for datatype TIMESTAMP, if user tries to create a TIMESTAMP column with display width.
- Use display width for TIMESTAMP only in type_timestamp test to make sure warning is displayed correctly.
