From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Valentine Gogichashvili <valgog(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jaime Casanova <jaime(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Subject: | Re: final patch - plpgsql: for-in-array |
Date: | 2010-11-22 14:29:43 |
Message-ID: | AANLkTi=iQu5ULNjO+L9OzPbQOseJ55r5c-atHbytAu2-@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 6:21 AM, Valentine Gogichashvili
<valgog(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Hi,
> with the FOR e IN SELECT UNNEST(a) construct there is an issue again related
> to the unresting of composite type arrays:
> [ example ]
> Is it a bug or a feature?
It looks like the problem in this example is that PL/pgsql tries to
assign the result of unest(ta) to t.i rather than to t as a whole.
This is pretty ridiculously stupid in this case, but it would make
sense if the subselect where of the form SELECT a, b, c FROM ...
I haven't looked at the code to see whether there's a way to make this
case smarter (it would be nice - I've been bitten by similar problems
myself) but it's only tangentially related to the patch under
discussion.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2010-11-22 14:36:59 | Re: final patch - plpgsql: for-in-array |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2010-11-22 14:15:17 | Re: Re: Proposed Windows-specific change: Enable crash dumps (like core files) |