| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | anton(dot)dutov(at)gmail(dot)com, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: BUG #15960: ON CONFLICT Trying accessing to variables |
| Date: | 2019-08-15 17:09:14 |
| Message-ID: | CAH2-Wz=4bG6-Nj3152exty1HX1W_w5WqV-rNvo1Umcmk-_-22Q@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 10:05 AM Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> I'm not sure I quite buy that. There is no actual ambiguity here. I don't buy the variable referencing a constant - that'd not correctly work for subsequent uses of the statement if the variable differs - don't think we'd have replacing etc set up. Nor do I think we would even evaluate The variable/param.
If we were going to fix this, then it would probably be because of the
issue around it working inconsistently when the variable differs over
multiple calls. That's something that we've heard about at least once
before. I'm not excited about fixing the ambiguity issue.
> Seems like it's more a question of preventing the hook from resolving things at that point?
I don't know.
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2019-08-15 19:23:31 | Re: BUG #15913: Could not open relation with oid on PL/pgSQL method referencing temporary table that got recreated |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2019-08-15 17:05:48 | Re: BUG #15960: ON CONFLICT Trying accessing to variables |