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

Re: "ERROR: Query-specified return tuple and actual function

From: Adam Buraczewski <adamb(at)polbox(dot)pl>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>,Andrzej Kosmala <ak(at)webproject(dot)pl>, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: "ERROR: Query-specified return tuple and actual function
Date: 2003-01-14 10:33:11
Message-ID: 20030114103311.GC231@localhost.localdomain (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs
On Mon, Jan 13, 2003 at 02:52:25PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> writes:
> > Hmmm, looks like nodeFunctionscan.c:tupledesc_mismatch needs to be
> > taught about attisdropped. I'll submit a patch this evening if no one
> > else gets to it first.
> 
> Actually, I believe I deliberately left it like that because I was
> concerned about what would happen in this scenario.

Notice, please, that the bug does not only affect existing functions
returning table rows, it also prevents new functions from being
created.  I think this should not take place.  I can agree that one
should not be able to drop columns when there are some functions using
the table as an argument or return type, but it should be possible to
drop these functions, then drop some columns and create completely new
functions.  And now it ends with an error. :(

Best regards,

-- 
Adam Buraczewski <adamb(at)polbox(dot)pl> * Linux registered user #165585
GCS/TW d- s-:+>+:- a- C+++(++++) UL++++$ P++ L++++ E++ W+ N++ o? K? w--
O M- V- PS+ !PE Y PGP+ t+ 5 X+ R tv- b+ DI? D G++ e+++>++++ h r+>++ y?

In response to

pgsql-bugs by date

Next:From: pgsql-bugsDate: 2003-01-15 03:42:05
Subject: Bug #874: Install pgsql on solaris 8 error
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2003-01-14 02:31:19
Subject: Re: "ERROR: Query-specified return tuple and actual function

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