Re: BUG #9227: Error on SELECT ROW OVERLAPS ROW with single ROW argument
От | Joshua Yanovski |
---|---|
Тема | Re: BUG #9227: Error on SELECT ROW OVERLAPS ROW with single ROW argument |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CABz-M-EYhQj7ONdJ1RO6NRE4MSp33d+R0aXpkRyrC=ScAUMA3w@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: BUG #9227: Error on SELECT ROW OVERLAPS ROW with single ROW argument (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: BUG #9227: Error on SELECT ROW OVERLAPS ROW with single ROW argument
|
Список | pgsql-bugs |
Great, thanks. Yeah, I was thinking about that too--I am not sure if there are any other examples of a time where Postgres deliberately duplicates an argument like that (maybe there could be a check for it to be a constexpr or something? But that information isn't available at this point in the analysis process). On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 9:49 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Joshua Yanovski <pythonesque@gmail.com> writes: >> On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 4:33 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>> While it would be a reasonably simple change to make this work as >>> originally intended, I'm strongly tempted to just rip it out instead, >>> and only support the SQL-mandated syntax. If anyone was using this >>> undocumented feature, you'd think they'd have complained sometime in >>> the last ten years. And making it work would really entail adding >>> documentation and a regression test case, so it'd be substantially >>> more effort than just killing the "list_length == 1" case. > >> Attaching a patch to just remove the n == 1 case. > > It occurred to me that there's an additional reason not to make the > code work like Lockhart seems to have envisioned: if it did duplicate > the argument like that, that'd lead to double evaluation of any volatile > function that's present in the argument. So I've gone ahead and committed > this, along with some further fooling around to make the error messages > nicer. > > regards, tom lane -- Josh
В списке pgsql-bugs по дате отправления: