Re: [HACKERS] SIGSEGV on CREATE FUNCTION with plpgsql

>
> Wayne Piekarski <wayne@senet.com.au> writes:
> > So can someone give me some advice? Do you want me to provide a stack dump
> > or something?
>
> A stack trace might help --- I'm not sure why you are seeing this
> problem if there are no functions approaching 4k of text.

    Would be interesting if the problem is index related. I still
    wonder   (while   looking   at   the    code)    what    that
    ProcedureSrcIndex is really good for.

    I've  tracked  it down that it is only once used in pg_proc.c
    to check if an sql language function that  implements  a  SET
    already  exists  (weired  method  to  do  IMHO). The code was
    already there in version 1.1 (initial load) of the  code,  so
    it might be an old Postgres 4.2 thing that's obsolete.

    Additionally,  very  doubtful, is the fact that we considered
    functions returning SET's as broken, so  again  I  wonder  if
    there's  any  code  that automatically creates such functions
    (if not created automatically like the _RET  rules  of  views
    are,   identifying  by  this  wouldn't  allways  work).   The
    targetlists attached to SET functions don't work, so I assume
    removing the index wouldn't break anything.

    I'll dig out the 4.2 sources and search for a reason for that
    index there.  If I find anything, I can check if that's still
    in our code.


Jan

--

#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me.                                  #
#========================================= wieck@debis.com (Jan Wieck) #