when they contain the '!' operator.
Added an implementation for the method Item_func_not::print.
The method encloses any NOT expression into extra parentheses to avoid
incorrect stored representations of views that use the '!' operators.
Without this change when a view was created that contained
the expression !0*5 its stored representation contained not this
expression but rather the expression not(0)*5 .
The operator '!' is of a higher precedence than '*', while NOT is
of a lower precedence than '*'. That's why the expression !0*5
is interpreted as not(0)*5, while the expression not(0)*5 is interpreted
as not((0)*5) unless sql_mode is set to HIGH_NOT_PRECEDENCE.
Now we translate !0*5 into (not(0))*5.
If SELECT-part of CREATE VIEW statement contains '\Z',
it is not handled correctly.
The problem was in String::print().
Symbol with code 032 (26) is replaced with '\z',
which is not supported by the lexer.
The fix is to replace the symbol with '\Z'.
Due to the complexity of this change, everything is documented in WL#3565
This patch is the third iteration, it takes into account the comments
received to date.
a updatable view.
When there's a VIEW on a base table that have AUTO_INCREMENT column, and
this VIEW doesn't provide an access such column, after INSERT to such
VIEW LAST_INSERT_ID() did not return the value just generated.
This behaviour is intended and correct, because if the VIEW doesn't list
some columns then these columns are effectively hidden from the user,
and so any side effects of inserting default values to them.
However, there was a bug that such statement inserting into a view would
reset LAST_INSERT_ID() instead of leaving it unchanged.
This patch restores the original value of LAST_INSERT_ID() instead of
resetting it to zero.
Problem: renaming of FRM file and ARC files didn't use file name
encoding, so RENAME TABLE for views failed for views having
"tricky" characters in their names.
Fix: adding build_table_filename() in missing places.
should fail to create
The problem was that this type of errors was checked during view
creation, which doesn't happen when CREATE VIEW is a statement of
a created stored routine.
The solution is to perform the checks at parse time. The idea of the
fix is that the parser checks if a construction just parsed is allowed
in current circumstances by testing certain flags, and this flags are
reset for VIEWs.
The side effect of this change is that if the user already have
such bogus routines, it will now get a error when trying to do
SHOW CREATE PROCEDURE proc;
(and some other) and when trying to execute such routine he will get
ERROR 1457 (HY000): Failed to load routine test.p5. The table mysql.proc is missing, corrupt, or contains bad data (internal code -6)
However there should be very few such users (if any), and they may
(and should) drop these bogus routines.
In a trigger or a function used in a statement it is possible to do
SELECT from a table being modified by the statement. However,
encapsulation of such SELECT into a view and selecting from a view
instead of direct SELECT was not possible.
This happened because tables used by views (which in their turn
were used from functions/triggers) were not excluded from checks
in unique_table() routine as it happens for the rest of tables
added to the statement table list for prelocking.
With this fix we ignore all such tables in unique_table(), thus
providing consistency: inside a trigger or a functions SELECT from
a view may be used where plain SELECT is allowed. Modification of
the same table from function or trigger is still disallowed. Also,
this patch doesn't affect the case where SELECT from the table being
modified is done outside of function of trigger, such SELECTs are
still disallowed (this limitation and visibility problem when function
select from a table being modified are subjects of bug 21326). See
also bug 22427.
We use the condition from CHECK OPTION twice handling UPDATE command.
First we construnct 'update_cond' AND 'option_cond'
condition to select records to be updated, then we check the
'option_cond' for the updated row.
The problem is that first 'AND' condition is optimized during the 'select'
which can break 'option_cond' structure, so it will be unusable for
the sectond use - to check the updated row.
Possible soultion is either use copy of the condition in the first
use or to make optimization less traumatic for the operands.
I picked the first one.
