| From: | Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | jwieck(at)debis(dot)com |
| Cc: | jwieck(at)debis(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Problem with parser |
| Date: | 1998-08-24 01:52:03 |
| Message-ID: | 199808240152.VAA03913@candle.pha.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> > This looks bad to me, especially because you have a join going on in the
> > update. In fact, the comment clearly shows a false assertion, that ther
> > is only one relation in UPDATE.
> >
> > Is the update rewrite code assuming that the resdomno of an updated
> > column must match the attribute number? And the join is messing this
> > up?
> >
> > --
> > Bruce Momjian | 830 Blythe Avenue
>
> Right! The rewrite code assumes that the resdomno of the
> updated columns match the attribute number in the target
> relation. I don't know if the join is messing it up - but
> looks like. Thanks for the help - I think I have to look for
> usage of p_last_resno to find all the places where this can
> happen.
Jan, I will be fixing this.
Jan, I am attaching the current TODO list. Can you tell me which items
are fixed in 6.4?
--
Bruce Momjian | 830 Blythe Avenue
maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
+ If your life is a hard drive, | (610) 353-9879(w)
+ Christ can be your backup. | (610) 853-3000(h)
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| unknown_filename | text/plain | 22.9 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | The Hermit Hacker | 1998-08-24 02:04:17 | Re: [HACKERS] What I'm working on |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 1998-08-24 01:34:58 | Re: [HACKERS] What I'm working on |