David Johnston wrote
>
> Tom Lane-2 wrote
>> I kinda forgot about this bug when I went off on vacation:
>> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/
>> E1UnCv4-0007oF-Bo@.postgresql
>
> Just to clarify:
>
> This patch will cause both executions of the example query to fail with
> the "set-valued function..." error.
>
> Also, the reason the "::varchar" one did not fail was because not cast
> function was ever called but the "::varchar(30)" forced a function call
> and thus prompted the error when the second record and resultant
> regexp_matches expression was encountered.
>
> Thanks!
>
> David J.
Sorry for the imprecise English. I believe both of the following items but
would like confirmation/clarification of my understanding.
The whole "varchar/varchar(30)" discrepancy is bothersome and since the
example forces a function-call via the use of "lower(...)", and doesn't test
the non-function situation, I am concerned this patch is incorrect.
If the first item is not true, i.e. this patch makes both alternatives work,
then I think the wrong "solution" was chosen - or at least not fully vetted.
David J.
--
View this message in context:
http://postgresql.1045698.n5.nabble.com/Fixing-bug-8228-set-valued-function-called-in-context-that-cannot-accept-a-set-tp5785622p5785631.html
Sent from the PostgreSQL - hackers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.