| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| 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 14:38:51 |
| Message-ID: | 8554.1287326331@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2010-10-17 14:41:22 | Re: Foreign Visual Studio builds |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2010-10-17 14:34:08 | Re: WIP: extensible enums |