| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: CALL stmt, ERROR: unrecognized node type: 113 bug |
| Date: | 2018-02-09 14:42:41 |
| Message-ID: | 1431.1518187361@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"David G. Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 6:23 AM, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 09, 2018 at 12:02:57PM +0100, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>>> Blocking subqueries in CALL parameters is possible solution.
> To me this feels like an interaction between two features that users are
> going to expect to just work.
Meh. It doesn't look significantly different to me than the restriction
that you can't have sub-selects in CHECK expressions, index expressions,
etc. Obviously we need a clean failure like you get for those cases.
But otherwise it's an OK restriction that stems from exactly the same
cause: we do not want to invoke the full planner in this context (and
even if we did, we don't want to use the full executor to execute the
result).
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David G. Johnston | 2018-02-09 14:46:24 | Re: CALL stmt, ERROR: unrecognized node type: 113 bug |
| Previous Message | Craig Ringer | 2018-02-09 14:40:11 | Re: Is there a cache consistent interface to tables ? |