Re: BUG #18422: Assert in expandTupleDesc() fails on row mismatch with additional SRF
От
Richard Guo
Тема
Re: BUG #18422: Assert in expandTupleDesc() fails on row mismatch with additional SRF
Дата
Msg-id
CAMbWs4-xmohkFzVaT8rxEjpkB35JUNxpQtyEaPD+OafFMm5W8g@mail.gmail.com
Ответ на
Список
Дерево обсуждения
BUG #18422: Assert in expandTupleDesc() fails on row mismatch with additional SRF PG Bug reporting form <noreply@postgresql.org>
Re: BUG #18422: Assert in expandTupleDesc() fails on row mismatch with additional SRF Tender Wang <tndrwang@gmail.com>
Re: BUG #18422: Assert in expandTupleDesc() fails on row mismatch with additional SRF Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: BUG #18422: Assert in expandTupleDesc() fails on row mismatch with additional SRF Richard Guo <guofenglinux@gmail.com>
Re: BUG #18422: Assert in expandTupleDesc() fails on row mismatch with additional SRF Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: BUG #18422: Assert in expandTupleDesc() fails on row mismatch with additional SRF Richard Guo <guofenglinux@gmail.com>
Re: BUG #18422: Assert in expandTupleDesc() fails on row mismatch with additional SRF Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: BUG #18422: Assert in expandTupleDesc() fails on row mismatch with additional SRF Richard Guo <guofenglinux@gmail.com>
Re: BUG #18422: Assert in expandTupleDesc() fails on row mismatch with additional SRF Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: BUG #18422: Assert in expandTupleDesc() fails on row mismatch with additional SRF Richard Guo <guofenglinux@gmail.com>
Re: BUG #18422: Assert in expandTupleDesc() fails on row mismatch with additional SRF Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 10:13 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
Richard Guo <guofenglinux@gmail.com> writes:
> Do you think we can have a parameter in the new get_expr_result_rtfunc()
> function to indicate whether we want to build an intermediate tupdesc
> when we have a coldeflist? Then we can set it to true in the two places
> that are correct already, and set it to false at the places we need to
> fix. But I'm not sure if including such a new parameter would be an
> improvement or just make it worse.
I did think about that, but it seems mighty weird. The semantics of
the flag would have to be something like "I want a tupdesc when the
result type is COMPOSITE, but not when it's RECORD", which seems
rather arbitrary.
Indeed.
Perhaps it'd be sufficient to add a note to the header comment of
get_expr_result_type warning about when not to use it.
Works for me.
Thanks
Richard
Thanks
Richard
В списке pgsql-bugs по дате отправления
От: Thomas Munro
Дата:
От: Tom Lane
Дата: