From: | Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | exclusion(at)gmail(dot)com, pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: BUG #18722: Processing arrays with plpgsql raises errors |
Date: | 2024-11-25 20:42:37 |
Message-ID: | CAEZATCXZvn62enX=vYiosOFDT=ya4j-6vhaw7xw8Kb18d6+v5Q@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
On Mon, 25 Nov 2024 at 19:16, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
> Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > I didn't mean do it in all cases, I just meant the NullIfExpr case
> > identified here. My point was that instead of modifying the evaluation
> > code for EEOP_NULLIF to make it call
> > MakeExpandedObjectReadOnlyInternal(), it would be easier to insert a
> > EEOP_MAKE_READONLY step for the first argument of the EEOP_NULLIF
> > step.
>
> But then the NULLIF step would only have access to the R/O pointer,
> no? We do want to pass on a R/W pointer to the output, if we got
> one, to handle cases like
> fconsumer(NULLIF(fproducer(...), ...), ...)
> Admittedly that's a pretty edgy edge-case, but still we're leaving
> money on the table if we don't do it. So I think we have to deal
> with the issue within NULLIF.
>
OK, that makes sense.
Regards,
Dean
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2024-11-25 22:40:10 | Re: Detection of hadware feature => please do not use signal |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2024-11-25 20:07:03 | Re: Build failure with GCC 15 (defaults to -std=gnu23) |