Re: Re: [BUGS] BUG #14153: Unrecognized node type error when upsert is present in recursive CTE

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>
Cc: Thomas Alton <thomas(dot)alton(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Re: [BUGS] BUG #14153: Unrecognized node type error when upsert is present in recursive CTE
Date: 2016-05-23 23:11:29
Message-ID: 2423.1464045089@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers

I wrote:
> Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> writes:
>>> If that sounds like a plausible choke-point, the next question is what
>>> to use to enable the debug test. I propose "#ifdef COPY_PARSE_PLAN_TREES"
>>> since that enables similar sanity checking for other parts of
>>> backend/nodes/, and we do have at least one buildfarm member using it.

>> That's what I was thinking, too. No need to keep it separate.

> After cogitating, I did it as attached just for readability's sake.

And after further thought, I decided that that was penny-wise and
pound-foolish; it's more readable if the #define is just an independent
pg_config_manual.h entry. The only work it'd save is the need to update
a buildfarm animal or two to add the new #define, which is not exactly
a huge cost.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-bugs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Geoghegan 2016-05-23 23:15:25 Re: Re: [BUGS] BUG #14153: Unrecognized node type error when upsert is present in recursive CTE
Previous Message Tom Lane 2016-05-23 21:53:37 Re: Re: [BUGS] BUG #14153: Unrecognized node type error when upsert is present in recursive CTE

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Geoghegan 2016-05-23 23:15:25 Re: Re: [BUGS] BUG #14153: Unrecognized node type error when upsert is present in recursive CTE
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2016-05-23 22:31:25 Re: Inheritance