| From: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| 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>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Subject: | Re: CALL stmt, ERROR: unrecognized node type: 113 bug |
| Date: | 2018-02-12 17:24:04 |
| Message-ID: | CAFj8pRAcOV5-F_7M4VNf20TwvPxKuAxZ7Nq2JeYeotxL2p_C9A@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
2018-02-12 18:17 GMT+01:00 Peter Eisentraut <
peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>:
> On 2/9/18 09:42, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Meh. 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).
>
> A close analogy is that EXECUTE parameters also don't accept subqueries.
> It would perhaps be nice if that could be made to work, but as
> discussed it would require a bunch more work.
>
I can live with it. Should be well documented and explained.
Regards
Pavel
>
> --
> Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
> PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2018-02-12 17:26:23 | Re: Parallel bt build crashes when DSM_NONE |
| Previous Message | Steve Atkins | 2018-02-12 17:18:29 | Re: persistent read cache |