| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: CALL stmt, ERROR: unrecognized node type: 113 bug |
| Date: | 2018-02-09 16:30:49 |
| Message-ID: | 20180209163049.fpknedffkllkqzeq@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2018-02-09 09:42:41 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> It doesn't look significantly different to me than the restriction
> that you can't have sub-selects in CHECK expressions, index
> expressions, etc. Obviously we need a clean failure like you get for
> those cases. But otherwise it's an OK restriction that stems from
> exactly the same cause: we do not want to invoke the full planner in
> this context (and even if we did, we don't want to use the full
> executor to execute the result).
+1
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2018-02-09 16:50:14 | Re: postgres_fdw: perform UPDATE/DELETE .. RETURNING on a join directly |
| Previous Message | Claudio Freire | 2018-02-09 16:05:43 | Re: [HACKERS] Vacuum: allow usage of more than 1GB of work mem |