← Back to team overview

maria-developers team mailing list archive

Re: Aggregate Stored Functions


Hi Varun,

I've reviewed your patch. Looks good from my side. Just stylistic comments.
Feel free to keep your own version if you don't agree with them.

I think that you could have used the m_flags field, but having a specific
member makes things a lot clearer in my opinion. Perhaps Sanja has a
different opinion.

Next step is to figure out how to use this new flag from sp_head in the
execution part. If you get completely stuck, let us know. :)


On Tue, 24 May 2016 at 11:30 Sanja <sanja.byelkin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Yes, the decision is right. I'll check later the code on github.
> On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 10:27 AM, Varun Gupta <varungupta1803@xxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>> Hi,
>> I had been going through the LEX struct and could not find any flag
>> member there which could be used to specify if a function is aggregate or
>> not. So i created the new flag inside sp_head, so as to make sure it could
>> be used for stored procedures too in the future.
>> I have committed the changes on GitHub :)
>> On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 4:21 PM, Vicențiu Ciorbaru <cvicentiu@xxxxxxxxx>
>> wrote:
>>> Hi Varun,
>>> Getting the parser to accept the syntax is a good first step. Writing
>>> tests is the correct way to go also.
>>> Now we need to have a way to pass this extra information to the part of
>>> the code that stores / executes this procedure. When we encounter this
>>> AGGREGATE_SYM syntax we have to record it somewhere. We generally use the
>>> LEX structure for this. See if there is any flag member within it that you
>>> can use for this purpose. If you can't find any, you can potentially create
>>> one yourself.
>>> Now, it would be a good time to try and familiarize yourself with how we
>>> get from having a regular parsed function to storing it and afterwards
>>> executing it. This is the main logic that we have to deal with. I'm not
>>> going to suggest you any specific thing to do right now as there are
>>> multiple ways to do this. Try and come up with a simple plan on how to
>>> extend this functionality for our use case. You don't have to code it all,
>>> just yet :). We'll improve (or perhaps change it) afterwards. It doesn't
>>> have to be perfect the first time, but this way you'll get a try at
>>> designing an implementation idea.
>>> Great job so far!
>>> Vicentiu
>>> On Mon, 23 May 2016 at 09:04 Varun Gupta <varungupta1803@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>> As in my previous mail I have added the FETCH statement to the parser
>>>> and have tested it, when the syntax is correct . Now I am writing test that
>>>> would also give an error for incorrect syntax. Also I would like how to
>>>> proceed further :).
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~maria-developers
>>>> Post to     : maria-developers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~maria-developers
>>>> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Follow ups