| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | krking(at)zju(dot)edu(dot)cn, pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: BUG #17477: A crash bug in transformValuesClause() |
| Date: | 2022-05-09 15:25:38 |
| Message-ID: | 3809468.1652109938@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> It seems like transformValuesClause() cannot handle properly the value
> clause having a relation that has an empty column. Should we raise an
> error in this case?
Given that we try to support zero-column relations, I'm not sure why
we'd insist on disallowing zero-column VALUES. I think the problem
is that the code in transformValuesClause needs to be tweaked to
make that work. The attached quick hack seems to do the trick.
regards, tom lane
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| allow-zero-columns-in-VALUES.patch | text/x-diff | 1.4 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | PG Bug reporting form | 2022-05-09 15:28:12 | BUG #17478: Missing documents in the index after CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY (but existing in the table) |
| Previous Message | Masahiko Sawada | 2022-05-09 14:03:56 | Re: BUG #17477: A crash bug in transformValuesClause() |