| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Subject: | Re: CALL stmt, ERROR: unrecognized node type: 113 bug |
| Date: | 2018-02-12 17:17:48 |
| Message-ID: | 32742f9b-ed63-9af8-4c88-a54a62d9d797@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2/9/18 09:42, Tom Lane wrote:
> Meh. It doesn't look significantly different to me than the restriction
> that you can't have sub-selects in CHECK expressions, index expressions,
> etc. Obviously we need a clean failure like you get for those cases.
> But otherwise it's an OK restriction that stems from exactly the same
> cause: we do not want to invoke the full planner in this context (and
> even if we did, we don't want to use the full executor to execute the
> result).
A close analogy is that EXECUTE parameters also don't accept subqueries.
It would perhaps be nice if that could be made to work, but as
discussed it would require a bunch more work.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Steve Atkins | 2018-02-12 17:18:29 | Re: persistent read cache |
| Previous Message | Joe Conway | 2018-02-12 16:30:57 | Re: A space-efficient, user-friendly way to store categorical data |