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

Re: Re: pg_stat_statements normalisation without invasive changes to the parser (was: Next steps on pg_stat_statements normalisation)

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Peter Geoghegan <peter(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Re: pg_stat_statements normalisation without invasive changes to the parser (was: Next steps on pg_stat_statements normalisation)
Date: 2012-02-27 04:59:11
Message-ID: CA+TgmoZ1Tu1R-7d3yKkjFXLj_JOag9spVL4n=iFc9YBvpQ24YA@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 9:43 AM, Peter Geoghegan <peter(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> Tom's point example does not seem to be problematic to me - the cast
> *should* blame the 42 const token, as the cast doesn't work as a
> result of its representation, which is in point of fact why the core
> system blames the Const node and not the coercion one.

I think I agree Tom's position upthread: blaming the coercion seems to
me to make more sense.  But if that's what we're trying to do, then
why does parse_coerce() say this?

        /*
         * Set up to point at the constant's text if the input routine throws
         * an error.
         */

/me is confused.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Robert HaasDate: 2012-02-27 05:13:15
Subject: Re: Initial 9.2 pgbench write results
Previous:From: Robert HaasDate: 2012-02-27 03:44:32
Subject: Re: pgstat documentation tables

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