| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker <ilmari(at)ilmari(dot)org>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Making CASE error handling less surprising |
| Date: | 2020-07-23 20:49:12 |
| Message-ID: | 20200723204912.brclrpcwf3un2nmq@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2020-07-23 13:42:08 -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2020-07-23 16:34:25 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> > > It doesn't seem like it'd be too hard to implement that, but that it'd
> > > probably be fairly bulky because we'd need to track more state across
> > > recursive expression_tree_mutator() calls.
> >
> > It wouldn't be any harder than what I posted upthread; it would
> > just be a different flag getting passed down in the context struct
> > and getting tested in a different place.
>
> Cool.
Hm. Would SQL function inlining be a problem? It looks like that just
substitutes parameters. Before calling
eval_const_expressions_mutator(). So we'd not know not to evaluate such
"pseudo constants". And that'd probably be confusing, especially
because it's not exactly obvious when inlining happens.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2020-07-23 20:56:44 | Re: Making CASE error handling less surprising |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2020-07-23 20:42:08 | Re: Making CASE error handling less surprising |