Re: [HACKERS] Re: Apparent bug in _make_subplan

From: Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Vadim Mikheev <vadim(at)krs(dot)ru>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: Apparent bug in _make_subplan
Date: 1999-06-17 14:56:17
Message-ID: 199906171456.KAA24014@candle.pha.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> After looking through all the references to varlevelsup, it's clear
> that all pieces of the system *except* subselect.c treat varlevelsup
> as a relative level number, so-many-levels-out-from-current-subplan.
> subselect.c has a couple of places that think nonzero varlevelsup
> is an absolute level number, with 1 as the top plan. This is certainly
> a source of bugs --- it happens to work for two-level plans, but will
> fail for anything more deeply nested. I will work on fixing subselect.c
> to bring it in line with the rest of the world...

varlevelsup was always intended to be relative.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle
maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tatsuo Ishii 1999-06-17 14:58:40 Re: [HACKERS] (don't know who else to tell) 6.5 gets build on LinuxPPCR5 but fails a lot of regr. tests
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 1999-06-17 14:53:01 Re: [HACKERS] tables > 1 gig