| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Kristofer Munn <kmunn(at)munn(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Arrays broken on temp tables |
| Date: | 1999-11-06 21:12:42 |
| Message-ID: | 2914.941922762@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Bug confirmed. Wow, that is strange. There isn't anything about temp
> table that would suggest this would happen.
I see it too. explain shows something pretty fishy:
regression=> explain update tmpArray set val[3] = 7;
NOTICE: QUERY PLAN:
Nested Loop (cost=43043.00 rows=1000000 width=22)
-> Seq Scan on pg_temp.2904.0 (cost=43.00 rows=1000 width=12)
-> Seq Scan on tmparray (cost=43.00 rows=1000 width=10)
EXPLAIN
I'm betting that something in the array code is somehow bypassing the
normal table lookup mechanism, and is managing to see the underlying
temp-table name that should be hidden from it. Will look further...
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Charles Tassell | 1999-11-06 21:13:03 | Re: [HACKERS] Re: [GENERAL] indexed regex select optimisation missing? |
| Previous Message | Ansley, Michael | 1999-11-06 21:08:00 | RE: [HACKERS] Arrays broken on temp tables |