| From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Philip Warner <pjw(at)rhyme(dot)com(dot)au>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Minor buglet in update...from (I think) |
| Date: | 2001-11-27 00:23:17 |
| Message-ID: | 200111270023.fAR0NHJ12366@candle.pha.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > Can anyone explain this failure? It still exists in CVS.
>
> >> update t1 set f2=count(*) from t2 where t1.f1=2 and t2.f1=t1.f1 ;
> >> ERROR: ExecutePlan: (junk) `ctid' is NULL!
>
> As I recall, discussion about fixing that problem trailed off because
> no one could explain what an aggregate means in UPDATE. My thought
> is we should probably forbid the construct entirely (SQL does).
> See previous discussion around 7/7/00.
Oh, so it is the aggregate. What threw me off is that both parts of the
WHERE clause are required to cause the failure, so I thought it was
something else.
I don't see a problem with aggregates in UPDATE, except when the updated
field is part of the WHERE clause, but even then, transaction semantics
should make it matter. I see the mailist thread now.
I will try and get it added to the TODO list so it is documented.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2001-11-27 00:28:31 | Re: Minor buglet in update...from (I think) |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2001-11-27 00:21:15 | Re: Locale timings |