| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: WIP: extensible enums |
| Date: | 2010-10-17 15:35:24 |
| Message-ID: | 4CBB17BC.3080508@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 10/17/2010 10:38 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan<andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
>> On 10/17/2010 05:30 AM, Dean Rasheed wrote:
>>> I just thought of another corner case, which can lead to a crash. The
>>> comparison code assumes that the number of elements in the enumeration
>>> is constant during a query, but that's not necessarily the case.
>>> ...
>>> Of course that's a pathalogical example, but we should protect against
>>> it, preferrably without compromising performance in more normal cases.
>> Yeah, good point. But how do we manage that?
> Why is it crashing? I can see that this sort of thing might lead to
> nonsensical answers, but a crash is harder to understand.
>
> regards, tom "haven't read the patch" lane
Heh.
I've been deep in buildfarm work, but I'll look at this now to see what
I can find.
cheers
andrew
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-10-17 15:49:20 | Re: WIP: extensible enums |
| Previous Message | Dean Rasheed | 2010-10-17 15:32:03 | Re: WIP: extensible enums |