From: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Recursive containment of composite types |
Date: | 2011-03-28 14:54:51 |
Message-ID: | AANLkTi=J1abRR+uuSxtJ-v2X6s7u49uHJ8Lsvp1z71w_@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 9:47 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Bug #5950 proposes the following test case:
>
> create table t ();
> alter table t add childs t;
> alter table t add id serial not null primary key;
>
> Most of the back branches dump core because CheckAttributeType() goes
> into infinite recursion. That doesn't happen in HEAD, but so far as I
> can see that's just because of some chance rearrangement of the order of
> operations in ALTER TABLE. I wouldn't be at all surprised if there are
> related cases where HEAD fails too.
>
> I think the most straightforward and reliable fix for this would be to
> forbid recursive containment of a rowtype in itself --- ie, the first
> ALTER should have been rejected. Can anyone think of a situation where
> it would be sane to allow such a thing?
Well, maybe. In fact, probably. That's like asking in C if it's sane
to have a structure to contain a pointer back to itself, which of
course it is. That said, if it doesn't work properly, it should
probably be disabled until it does.
merlin
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2011-03-28 14:58:28 | Re: Additional options for Sync Replication |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2011-03-28 14:54:04 | Re: Recursive containment of composite types |