| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, "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 23:17:55 |
| Message-ID: | 20180210231755.GA1495@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Feb 10, 2018 at 01:46:40PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> I pushed a fix for all that.
Shouldn't there be a test case as well? The patch I sent upthread was
doing the whole set, except that I did not bother
> The failure in pg_get_functiondef() is still there. While the immediate
> answer probably is to teach that function to emit correct CREATE PROCEDURE
> syntax, I continue to think that it's a bad idea to be putting zeroes into
> pg_proc.prorettype.
Yeah, or an error with a new function dedicated to procedures. I also
finc confusing the use of prorettype to track this object type.
This brings the amount of objects stored in pg_proc to four. Perhaps it
would be time to bring more clarity in pg_proc by introducing a prokind
column for functions, aggregates, window functions and procedures? I
don't feel really hot for an extra boolean column like proisproc.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2018-02-11 00:41:03 | Re: CALL stmt, ERROR: unrecognized node type: 113 bug |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2018-02-10 23:11:43 | Re: JIT compiling with LLVM v9.0 |