| From: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Assertion failure in plpgsql with INSTEAD OF rule |
| Date: | 2009-01-14 09:56:21 |
| Message-ID: | 496DB6C5.4060601@enterprisedb.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> So what I'm thinking is:
>
> 1. We can't redefine the SPI interface in back branches, so there's
> probably little alternative but to remove those Asserts there.
Committed this.
> 2. In HEAD, I think we should have SPI return a new SPI_OK_REWRITTEN
> code for this case, and have plpgsql respond to that by always setting
> found = false. With that, the Asserts can stay (in fact the new path
> should assert !mod_stmt, since it shouldn't have found any canSetTag
> query).
I'll look into this as a separate patch.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Louis-David Mitterrand | 2009-01-14 10:46:11 | inconsistency in aliasing |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2009-01-14 08:12:17 | Re: Latest version of Hot Standby patch |