Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: RESULT_OID Bug

From: "Kevin McArthur" <postgresql-list(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 20:20:29
Message-ID: 005201c592e8$a2da4a50$0701a8c0@kdesktop (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Changing just the one appears to resolve the oid bug. Should probably talk 
to neilc to see why he changed it.

I will pass along a patch for this particular case to -patches shortly

Kevin  McArthur
----- 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
> 


In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Alvaro HerreraDate: 2005-07-27 20:24:31
Subject: Re: Integrated autovacuum
Previous:From: Kevin McArthurDate: 2005-07-27 20:15:23
Subject: Re: RESULT_OID Bug

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group