Re: oversight in EphemeralNamedRelation support

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com>, PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Hugo Mercier <hugo(dot)mercier(at)oslandia(dot)com>, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: oversight in EphemeralNamedRelation support
Date: 2017-10-13 03:22:30
Message-ID: 14137.1507864950@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 12:46 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Yeah, I agree --- personally I'd never write a query like that. But
>> the fact that somebody ran into it when v10 has been out for barely
>> a week suggests that people are doing it.

> Not exactly -- Julien's bug report was about a *qualified* reference
> being incorrectly rejected.

Nonetheless, he was using a CTE name equivalent to the name of the
query's target table. That's already confusing IMV ... and it does
not seem unreasonable to guess that he only qualified the target
because it stopped working unqualified.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2017-10-13 04:29:32 Re: BUG #14849: jsonb_build_object doesn't like VARIADIC calls very much
Previous Message Thomas Munro 2017-10-13 03:00:02 Re: oversight in EphemeralNamedRelation support