| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>, 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: | 2018-02-10 12:33:00 |
| Message-ID: | 20180210123300.GA16852@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Feb 09, 2018 at 08:30:49AM -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
> 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
+1.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2018-02-10 13:09:47 | Re: pgsql: Local partitioned indexes |
| Previous Message | Craig Ringer | 2018-02-10 11:45:59 | Re: Is there a cache consistent interface to tables ? |