From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: patch: function xmltable |
Date: | 2016-11-21 20:16:15 |
Message-ID: | 834.1479759375@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> Something I just noticed is that transformTableExpr takes a TableExpr
> node and returns another TableExpr node. That's unlike what we do in
> other places, where the node returned is of a different type than the
> input node. I'm not real clear what happens if you try to re-transform
> a node that was already transformed, but it seems worth thinking about.
We're not 100% consistent on that --- there are cases such as RowExpr
and CaseExpr where the same struct type is used for pre-parse-analysis
and post-parse-analysis nodes. I think it's okay as long as the
information content isn't markedly different, ie the transformation
just consists of transforming all the sub-nodes.
Being able to behave sanely on a re-transformation used to be an
issue, but we no longer expect transformExpr to support that.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2016-11-21 20:17:23 | Re: Postgres abort found in 9.3.11 |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2016-11-21 20:15:51 | Re: [RFC] Should we fix postmaster to avoid slow shutdown? |