From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
Cc: | Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: UPDATE crash in HEAD and 8.1 |
Date: | 2006-06-20 21:38:08 |
Message-ID: | 1049.1150839488@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> I'm fairly sure this query is illegal per spec. There are ancient
>> discussions in the archives about whether aggregates in an UPDATE target
>> list can have a consistent interpretation or not. We never found one,
>> but never got around to disallowing it either. Maybe it's time. If you
>> try it with something like sum() you don't get a crash, but you do get
>> rather bizarre behavior.
> Yeah, I agree we should disallow it. For the curious, the bizarre behavior
> is
> alvherre=# update pk set id = count(id) ;
> ERROR: ctid is NULL
Hmm, what version are you testing? What I see is that it updates a
single one of the table rows :-(
I found the previous discussion (or one such, anyway):
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-bugs/2000-07/msg00046.php
That message mentions "ctid is NULL" in the context of a join update,
but for the single-table case, all the versions I've tried seem to do
the other thing. It's pretty broken either way of course ...
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2006-06-20 21:43:20 | Re: UPDATE crash in HEAD and 8.1 |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2006-06-20 21:32:49 | trivial DoS on char recoding |