| From: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
| Cc: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [BUGS] Failure to coerce unknown type to specific type |
| Date: | 2015-04-23 09:26:16 |
| Message-ID: | CAKFQuwYZ2p2o1xgVgJF-6cQoWW1QmYr1oRUTUbU1AJ1XwdxSjQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 1:35 AM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <
horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
> Very sorry for the trash..
>
> ===
> Now I found a comment at just where I patched,
>
> > * XXX if the typinput function is not immutable, we really ought to
> > * postpone evaluation of the function call until runtime. But there
> > * is no way to represent a typinput function call as an expression
> > * tree, because C-string values are not Datums. (XXX This *is*
> > * possible as of 7.3, do we want to do it?)
>
> - Is it OK to *now* we can do this?
> + Is it OK to regard that we can do this *now*?
>
>
In this patch or a different one? Does this comment have anything to do
with the concern of this thread?
David J.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David G. Johnston | 2015-04-23 09:29:52 | Re: [BUGS] Failure to coerce unknown type to specific type |
| Previous Message | David G. Johnston | 2015-04-23 09:22:27 | Re: [BUGS] Failure to coerce unknown type to specific type |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David G. Johnston | 2015-04-23 09:29:52 | Re: [BUGS] Failure to coerce unknown type to specific type |
| Previous Message | David G. Johnston | 2015-04-23 09:22:27 | Re: [BUGS] Failure to coerce unknown type to specific type |