From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Rod Taylor <rbt(at)rbt(dot)ca> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Coerce to Domain |
Date: | 2002-12-17 23:15:54 |
Message-ID: | 15008.1040166954@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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?
BTW, this should be a lot easier to do cleanly (ie, without memory
leaks) now that there's a notion of expression state trees. You can
attach the information loaded from pg_constraint to the expression state
node for the CoerceToDomain node (being careful to copy it into
estate->es_query_cxt). Maybe that was already apparent to you ...
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2002-12-17 23:24:36 | Re: Update on replication |
Previous Message | Neil Conway | 2002-12-17 21:19:25 | disabled, deferred triggers |