Re: max_stack_depth problem though query is substantially smaller

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Bannert Matthias" <bannert(at)kof(dot)ethz(dot)ch>
Cc: Charles Clavadetscher <clavadetscher(at)swisspug(dot)org>, "pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: max_stack_depth problem though query is substantially smaller
Date: 2016-04-10 14:29:02
Message-ID: 7459.1460298542@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

"Bannert Matthias" <bannert(at)kof(dot)ethz(dot)ch> writes:
> Fwiw, I was not stubbornly insisting on nesting operators. Actually I switched from "=>" to the hstore function cause
> a note in the manual said it was deprecated (http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.0/static/hstore.html). Somehow I must have understand that note the wrong way.
> What's your take on that operator being deprecated?

That's the old SQL operator (which is not even there anymore) that's
equivalent to the hstore(text,text) constructor function, ie
"text => text returning hstore". It's quite a different concept
from the => notation inside an hstore literal. That is:
'foo'::text => 'bar'::text
is not like
'"foo" => "bar"'::hstore
even though they have the same end result.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Nolan 2016-04-10 14:49:21 Re: Bypassing NULL elements in row_to_json function
Previous Message durumdara@gmail.com 2016-04-10 13:29:59 Re: Really unique session ID - PID + connection timestamp?