| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>, 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: | 2018-02-11 06:10:50 |
| Message-ID: | 18879.1518329450@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> writes:
> On Sat, Feb 10, 2018 at 01:46:40PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I pushed a fix for all that.
> Shouldn't there be a test case as well?
There was one for the premature-free issue in d02d4a6d4. I didn't really
see a need for an explicit test for the subselect issue.
> This brings the amount of objects stored in pg_proc to four. Perhaps it
> would be time to bring more clarity in pg_proc by introducing a prokind
> column for functions, aggregates, window functions and procedures?
Yeah. I was under the impression that Peter was looking into that ...
[ digs... ] see
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/80ee1f5c-fa9d-7285-ed07-cff53d4f4858@2ndquadrant.com
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Etsuro Fujita | 2018-02-11 07:45:10 | Re: postgres_fdw: perform UPDATE/DELETE .. RETURNING on a join directly |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2018-02-11 05:56:46 | Bogosities in pg_dump's extended statistics support |