From: | Rod Taylor <rbt(at)rbt(dot)ca> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Coerce to Domain |
Date: | 2002-12-18 00:18:14 |
Message-ID: | 1040170694.58485.55.camel@jester |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, 2002-12-17 at 18:15, Tom Lane wrote:
> Rod Taylor <rbt(at)rbt(dot)ca> writes:
> > 3. On initial pass, CoerceToDomain will have a 'raw' expression tree
> > (simple arg of data to coerce). After passing through
> > ExecCoerceTypeConstraints a 'cooked' expression tree will contain the
> > constraint tests.
>
> Uh ... why? The cooked tree should be stored in pg_constraint, no?
> What's the point of redoing the parse analysis phase?
Ok.. Cooked was the wrong word. The individual constraints will not be
retested, but the group as a whole will be prepared (discovered?, looked
up?).
> node for the CoerceToDomain node (being careful to copy it into
> estate->es_query_cxt). Maybe that was already apparent to you ...
Somewhat apparent given your recent commits. I've not looked to find
out exactly what it is yet, but I'm guessing recent changes to
EvalPlanQual() will tell me.
--
Rod Taylor <rbt(at)rbt(dot)ca>
PGP Key: http://www.rbt.ca/rbtpub.asc
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Marc G. Fournier | 2002-12-18 00:18:31 | Re: Update on replication |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-12-17 23:24:36 | Re: Update on replication |