Re: [GENERAL] Warning: Don't delete those /tmp/.PGSQL.* files

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Joel Burton" <jburton(at)scw(dot)org>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Warning: Don't delete those /tmp/.PGSQL.* files
Date: 2000-11-30 00:25:17
Message-ID: 18615.975543917@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general pgsql-hackers

"Joel Burton" <jburton(at)scw(dot)org> writes:
> I think it wasn't just two views pointing at each other (it would, of
> course, be next to impossible to even create those, unless you hand
> tweaked the system tables), but I think was a view-relies-on-a-
> function-relies-on-a-view kind of problem.

Oh, OK. I wouldn't expect the rewriter to realize that that sort of
situation is recursive. Depending on what your function is doing, it
might or might not be an infinite recursion, so I don't think I'd want
the system arbitrarily preventing you from doing this sort of thing.

Perhaps there should be an upper bound on function-call recursion depth
enforced someplace? Not sure.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Ronald Cole 2000-11-30 01:18:01 Re: Why PostgreSQL is not that popular as MySQL?
Previous Message Igor V. Rafienko 2000-11-30 00:24:22 Re: Unanswered questions about Postgre

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2000-11-30 00:42:53 Re: [SQL] Rules with Conditions: Bug, or Misunderstanding
Previous Message Joel Burton 2000-11-30 00:00:22 Rules with Conditions: Bug, or Misunderstanding