Re: BUG #18722: Processing arrays with plpgsql raises errors

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

In response to

Browse pgsql-bugs by date

  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)