| From: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
| Subject: | SRF rescan testing |
| Date: | 2002-05-19 23:33:53 |
| Message-ID: | 3CE83661.9050704@joeconway.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
was Re: [PATCHES] SRF patch (was Re: [HACKERS] troubleshooting pointers)
Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Now that I think about it, it's possible that ExecFunctionReScan is
> correct now, at least given the simplistic always-materialize policy
> that we've implemented so far. But it hasn't gotten much testing.
OK -- the attached (stand alone) test script exercises
ExecFunctionReScan, including cases with chgParam != NULL. I'll try to
come up with one or two more variants for the latter, but so far I have
not found any misbehavior.
Joe
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| srf-test-rescan.sql | text/plain | 4.5 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joe Conway | 2002-05-20 00:40:15 | Re: SRF patch (was Re: [HACKERS] troubleshooting pointers) |
| Previous Message | Dhruv Pilania | 2002-05-19 23:24:28 | getting oid of tuple in executePlan |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joe Conway | 2002-05-20 00:40:15 | Re: SRF patch (was Re: [HACKERS] troubleshooting pointers) |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-05-19 22:36:19 | Re: SRF patch (was Re: [HACKERS] troubleshooting pointers) |