Re: fix for PL/PgSQL segfault
От | Neil Conway |
---|---|
Тема | Re: fix for PL/PgSQL segfault |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1042742152.20006.94.camel@tokyo обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: fix for PL/PgSQL segfault (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: fix for PL/PgSQL segfault
|
Список | pgsql-patches |
On Thu, 2003-01-16 at 12:18, Tom Lane wrote: > Actually, the fix I had in mind was to cause the SELECT to assign a row > of nulls to the RECORD variable Heh, I just can't seem to get this patch right :-) > Then, if rec->tup is found to be NULL in RETURN NEXT, that means no > attempt has ever been made to assign to the variable. I'm undecided > about whether that case should return nulls as per your patch, or should > raise an error. It seems a little inconsistent to treat a "never-assigned-to" variable differently than one which has been the target of a SELECT INTO that returns zero rows, doesn't it? In any case, I don't particularly mind which behavior we choose: when there's a consensus, I'll send in a new version of the patch. Cheers, Neil -- Neil Conway <neilc@samurai.com> || PGP Key ID: DB3C29FC
В списке pgsql-patches по дате отправления: