| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk> |
| Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Boszormenyi Zoltan <zb(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: UNNEST with multiple args, and TABLE with multiple funcs |
| Date: | 2013-11-19 19:50:28 |
| Message-ID: | 17284.1384890628@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk> writes:
> "Tom" == Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Tom> BTW, the reason we need to store the column count explicitly is
> Tom> that we have to ignore the added columns if a composite type has
> Tom> had an ADD COLUMN done to it since the RTE was made. The
> Tom> submitted patch fails rather nastily in such cases, if the
> Tom> composite type isn't last in the function list.
> Am I understanding correctly that the only reason this didn't fail
> before we added ORDINALITY is that the executor in general does not
> care if there are more columns in a tuple than it expects? And that
> adding ORDINALITY broke this already?
Probably it's already broken with ORDINALITY, but I've not checked.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2013-11-19 20:01:07 | Re: UNNEST with multiple args, and TABLE with multiple funcs |
| Previous Message | Andrew Gierth | 2013-11-19 19:13:21 | Re: UNNEST with multiple args, and TABLE with multiple funcs |