From: | jwieck(at)debis(dot)com (Jan Wieck) |
---|---|
To: | maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us (Bruce Momjian) |
Cc: | jwieck(at)debis(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Problem with parser |
Date: | 1998-08-14 22:49:03 |
Message-ID: | m0z7See-000EBPC@orion.SAPserv.Hamburg.dsh.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> This looks bad to me, especially because you have a join going on in the
> update. In fact, the comment clearly shows a false assertion, that ther
> is only one relation in UPDATE.
>
> Is the update rewrite code assuming that the resdomno of an updated
> column must match the attribute number? And the join is messing this
> up?
>
> --
> Bruce Momjian | 830 Blythe Avenue
Right! The rewrite code assumes that the resdomno of the
updated columns match the attribute number in the target
relation. I don't know if the join is messing it up - but
looks like. Thanks for the help - I think I have to look for
usage of p_last_resno to find all the places where this can
happen.
Little joke:
At the place in analyze.c, where a TLE is created, there is a
comment that not creating a proper target list with correct
resdomno's might break rules :-)
I love those comments. And especially all that have XXXXX
somewhere.
Jan
--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#======================================== jwieck(at)debis(dot)com (Jan Wieck) #
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 1998-08-15 01:17:41 | Re: [HACKERS] Problem with parser |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 1998-08-14 19:26:06 | Re: [HACKERS] Problem with parser |