From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Yahor Yuzefovich <yahor(at)cockroachlabs(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: A server crash with a SQL procedure returning a user-defined type on 14.8 |
Date: | 2024-03-12 19:50:43 |
Message-ID: | 1718613.1710273043@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
Yahor Yuzefovich <yahor(at)cockroachlabs(dot)com> writes:
> CREATE TYPE typ AS (a INT, b INT); CREATE PROCEDURE p_udt(OUT typ) AS $$
> SELECT (1, 2); $$ LANGUAGE SQL; CALL p_udt(NULL);
Thanks for the report. What seems to be happening is that functions.c
is getting confused as to whether it should return a record containing
a record, or just a record. check_sql_fn_retval explains:
* If the target list has one non-junk entry, and that expression has
* or can be coerced to the declared return type, take it as the
* result. This allows, for example, 'SELECT func2()', where func2
* has the same composite return type as the function that's calling
* it. This provision creates some ambiguity --- maybe the expression
* was meant to be the lone field of the composite result --- but it
* works well enough as long as we don't get too enthusiastic about
* inventing coercions from scalar to composite types.
As far as I know, that is fine for functions. But it's not fine for
procedures: those are marked as returning RECORD if there are any
output parameters at all, and the code for CALL expects that it's
going to get back a record containing one column per output parameter,
so we can't flatten that into a record containing two ints.
This has been busted since we invented procedures, I think.
This is easy to fix if we add a parameter to check_sql_fn_retval
indicating whether we're considering a function or a procedure.
While that's not problematic in HEAD, I'm worried that there might
be external callers of that function in the back branches. I guess
we can use the old trick of making the existing function into a
wrapper in the back branches.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Noah Misch | 2024-03-12 19:55:17 | Re: BUG #18389: pg_database_owner not recognized with alter default privileges |
Previous Message | PG Bug reporting form | 2024-03-12 19:04:11 | BUG #18389: pg_database_owner not recognized with alter default privileges |