From: | "Kevin McArthur" <Kevin(at)StormTide(dot)ca> |
---|---|
To: | "Andrew Dunstan" <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, <andrew(at)supernews(dot)com> |
Cc: | <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: RESULT_OID Bug |
Date: | 2005-07-27 20:15:23 |
Message-ID: | 003701c592e7$ec3f76d0$0701a8c0@kdesktop |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
It is the only one that currently appears to _for this bug_.
Kevin
----- Original Message -----
From: "Andrew Dunstan" <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: <andrew(at)supernews(dot)com>
Cc: <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2005 11:57 AM
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] RESULT_OID Bug
>
>
> Andrew - Supernews wrote:
>
>>On 2005-07-27, Michael Fuhr <mike(at)fuhr(dot)org> wrote:
>>
>>>So far the problem does seem to be specific to whatever PL/pgSQL's
>>>is doing, and it affects ROW_COUNT as well as RESULT_OID. I haven't
>>>been able to reproduce the problem with PL/Tcl or with C and SPI.
>>>
>>
>>src/pl/plpgsql/src/pl_exec.c, function exec_stmt_getdiag, uninitialized
>>variable "isnull".
>>
>>
>
> nice catch. I see the "= false" removed in about 5 places in this change:
> http://developer.postgresql.org/cvsweb.cgi/pgsql/src/pl/plpgsql/src/pl_exec.c.diff?r1=1.146;r2=1.147
>
> Is this the only one that matters?
>
> cheers
>
> (another) andrew
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Kevin McArthur | 2005-07-27 20:20:29 | Re: RESULT_OID Bug |
Previous Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2005-07-27 19:53:40 | Integrated autovacuum |