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.
The optimizer needs to evaluate whether predicates are better
evaluated using an index. IN is one such predicate.
To qualify an IN predicate must involve a field of the index
on the left and constant arguments on the right.
However whether an expression is a constant can be determined only
by knowing the preceding tables in the join order.
Assuming that only IN predicates with expressions on the right that
are constant for the whole query qualify limits the scope of
possible optimizations of the IN predicate (more specifically it
doesn't allow the "Range checked for each record" optimization for
such an IN predicate.
Fixed by not pre-determining the optimizability of the IN predicate
in the case when all right IN operands are not SQL constant expressions
of untouched rows in full table scans".
SELECT ... FOR UPDATE/LOCK IN SHARE MODE statements as well as
UPDATE/DELETE statements which were executed using full table
scan were not releasing locks on rows which didn't satisfy
WHERE condition.
This bug surfaced in 5.0 and affected NDB tables. (InnoDB tables
intentionally don't support such unlocking in default mode).
This problem occured because code implementing join didn't call
handler::unlock_row() for rows which didn't satisfy part of condition
attached to this particular table/level of nested loop. So we solve
the problem adding this call.
Note that we already had this call in place in 4.1 but it was lost
(actually not quite correctly placed) when we have introduced nested
joins.
Also note that additional QA should be requested once this patch is
pushed as interaction between handler::unlock_row() and many recent
MySQL features such as subqueries, unions, views is not tested enough.
for queries using 'range checked for each record'.
The problem was fixed in 5.0 by the patch for bug 12291.
This patch down-ported the corresponding code from 5.0 into
QUICK_SELECT::init() and added a new test case.
in a select list.
The objects of the Item_trigger_field class inherited the implementations
of the methods copy_or_same, get_tmp_table_item and get_tmp_table_field
from the class Item_field while they rather should have used the default
implementations defined for the base class Item.
It could cause catastrophic problems for triggers that used SELECTs
with select list containing trigger fields such as NEW.<table column>
under DISTINCT.
- Make the code produce correct result: use an array of triggers to turn on/off equalities for each
compared column. Also turn on/off optimizations based on those equalities.
- Make EXPLAIN output show "Full scan on NULL key" for tables for which we switch between
ref/unique_subquery/index_subquery and ALL access.
- index_subquery engine now has HAVING clause when it is needed, and it is
displayed in EXPLAIN EXTENDED
- Fix incorrect presense of "Using index" for index/unique-based subqueries (BUG#22930)
// bk trigger note: this commit refers to BUG#24127
When transforming "oe IN (SELECT ie ...)" wrap the pushed-down predicates
iff "oe can be null", not "ie can be null".
The fix doesn't cover row-based subqueries, those will be fixed in #24127.
