| From: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: fix for PL/PgSQL segfault |
| Date: | 2003-01-16 18:35:53 |
| Message-ID: | 1042742152.20006.94.camel@tokyo |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-patches |
On Thu, 2003-01-16 at 12:18, Tom Lane wrote:
> Actually, the fix I had in mind was to cause the SELECT to assign a row
> of nulls to the RECORD variable
Heh, I just can't seem to get this patch right :-)
> Then, if rec->tup is found to be NULL in RETURN NEXT, that means no
> attempt has ever been made to assign to the variable. I'm undecided
> about whether that case should return nulls as per your patch, or should
> raise an error.
It seems a little inconsistent to treat a "never-assigned-to" variable
differently than one which has been the target of a SELECT INTO that
returns zero rows, doesn't it?
In any case, I don't particularly mind which behavior we choose: when
there's a consensus, I'll send in a new version of the patch.
Cheers,
Neil
--
Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> || PGP Key ID: DB3C29FC
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2003-01-16 18:41:01 | Re: ALTER TABLE .. SET WITHOUT OIDS -- ROUND 2 |
| Previous Message | Neil Conway | 2003-01-16 18:34:00 | Re: replace oidrand() with random_sample() |