| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Joel Burton" <jburton(at)scw(dot)org> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [GENERAL] Warning: Don't delete those /tmp/.PGSQL.* files |
| Date: | 2000-11-30 00:25:17 |
| Message-ID: | 18615.975543917@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
"Joel Burton" <jburton(at)scw(dot)org> writes:
> I think it wasn't just two views pointing at each other (it would, of
> course, be next to impossible to even create those, unless you hand
> tweaked the system tables), but I think was a view-relies-on-a-
> function-relies-on-a-view kind of problem.
Oh, OK. I wouldn't expect the rewriter to realize that that sort of
situation is recursive. Depending on what your function is doing, it
might or might not be an infinite recursion, so I don't think I'd want
the system arbitrarily preventing you from doing this sort of thing.
Perhaps there should be an upper bound on function-call recursion depth
enforced someplace? Not sure.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ronald Cole | 2000-11-30 01:18:01 | Re: Why PostgreSQL is not that popular as MySQL? |
| Previous Message | Igor V. Rafienko | 2000-11-30 00:24:22 | Re: Unanswered questions about Postgre |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2000-11-30 00:42:53 | Re: [SQL] Rules with Conditions: Bug, or Misunderstanding |
| Previous Message | Joel Burton | 2000-11-30 00:00:22 | Rules with Conditions: Bug, or Misunderstanding |