From: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
Cc: | 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: | 2018-02-09 11:02:57 |
Message-ID: | CAFj8pRBEAFZNeLCu0G6V_LvzkXGBOBAE8MPCoSu648t7V=EvrQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi
2018-02-09 7:56 GMT+01:00 Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>:
> On Fri, Feb 02, 2018 at 04:07:28PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > You need to read that as "only a SubPlan can be executed after a SubLink
> > has been processed by the planner", so please replace the last "latter"
> > by "planner".
>
> (I forgot to add Peter and Andrew in CC: previously, so done now.)
>
> e4128ee7 is making is clear that SubLink are authorized when
> transforming it in transformSubLink(), however I cannot think about a
> use case so should we just forbid them, and this is actually untested.
> So the patch attached does so.
>
> The second problem involves a cache lookup failure for a type when
> trying to use pg_get_functiondef on a procedure. Luckily, it is
> possible to make the difference between a procedure and a function by
> checking if prorettype is InvalidOid or not. There is room for a new
> patch which supports pg_get_proceduredef() to generate the definition of
> a procedure, with perhaps a dedicated psql shortcut, but that could
> always be done later on.
>
Blocking subqueries in CALL parameters is possible solution. But blocking
func def for procedures without any substitution doesn't look correct for
me.
Regards
Pavel
> --
> Michael
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2018-02-09 11:10:11 | Re: Using scalar function as set-returning: bug or feature? |
Previous Message | Marko Tiikkaja | 2018-02-09 11:02:45 | Re: Using scalar function as set-returning: bug or feature? |