| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc>, Stefan Huehner <stefan(at)huehner(dot)org>, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Bug (8.4beta): FailedAssertion("!(bms_is_subset(relids, qualscope))", File: "initsplan.c", Line: 915) |
| Date: | 2009-05-06 17:48:32 |
| Message-ID: | 20090506174832.GH4476@alvh.no-ip.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>> How can the executor "see through" a plpgsql function definition? Or do
>> you mean that this reduction is being done at execution time? (hmm ...
>> this is what a one-time filter is, now that I think about it?)
>
> Note that the function is immutable, and the argument in the query is a
> constant. The planner simply runs the function and replaces the function
> call with the result.
The planner runs the function? Ok, neat -- I didn't know it did that.
(In my question above I meant "how can the _planner_ see through the
definition"; I was thinking that the planner had no way to run the
function).
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-05-06 18:07:37 | Re: Bug (8.4beta): FailedAssertion("!(bms_is_subset(relids, qualscope))", File: "initsplan.c", Line: 915) |
| Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2009-05-06 17:45:05 | Re: Bug (8.4beta): FailedAssertion("!(bms_is_subset(relids, qualscope))", File: "initsplan.c", Line: 915) |