| 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: | Kristofer Munn <kmunn(at)munn(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Arrays broken on temp tables |
| Date: | 1999-11-11 04:33:13 |
| Message-ID: | 199911110433.XAA10209@candle.pha.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> No, our code is *not* OK. It's true that the original example was given
> without a WHERE clause, whereas a practical UPDATE would usually have a
> WHERE clause; but that has nothing to do with whether the planner will
> generate a join or not. If a join is done then the wrong things will
> happen, WHERE or no WHERE.
>
> The bottom line here is that we mustn't generate separate RTEs for the
> logical and physical table names.
Are you saying a join on a temp table will not work? Can you give an
example?
--
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
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 1999-11-11 05:04:50 | Re: [HACKERS] Arrays broken on temp tables |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 1999-11-11 04:29:56 | Re: [HACKERS] Arrays broken on temp tables |