| From: | David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Something seems weird inside tts_virtual_copyslot() |
| Date: | 2023-12-01 01:30:41 |
| Message-ID: | CAApHDvqyzSpF=XfVzPZhQKg3hxxS4UKE5JjzRuP6dqkHayQ=+Q@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, 1 Dec 2023 at 13:14, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> So I think adding an assert to ExecCopySlot(), perhaps with a comment saying
> that the restriction could be lifted with a bit of work, would be fine.
Thanks for looking at this again.
How about the attached? I wrote the comment you mentioned and also
removed the Assert from tts_virtual_copyslot().
I also noted in the copyslot callback declaration that implementers
can assume the number of attributes in the source and destination
slots match.
David
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| ExecCopySlot_fix.patch | text/plain | 1.8 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2023-12-01 01:42:44 | Re: Refactoring backend fork+exec code |
| Previous Message | Tommy Pavlicek | 2023-12-01 00:44:40 | Re: [PATCH] ltree hash functions |