On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 7:42 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > "David G. Johnston" <david.g.johns...@gmail.com> writes: > > On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 6:23 AM, Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz> > wrote: > >> On Fri, Feb 09, 2018 at 12:02:57PM +0100, Pavel Stehule wrote: > >>> Blocking subqueries in CALL parameters is possible solution. > > > To me this feels like an interaction between two features that users are > > going to expect to just work. > > Meh. It doesn't look significantly different to me than the restriction > that you can't have sub-selects in CHECK expressions, index expressions, > etc. Obviously we need a clean failure like you get for those cases. > But otherwise it's an OK restriction that stems from exactly the same > cause: we do not want to invoke the full planner in this context (and > even if we did, we don't want to use the full executor to execute the > result). >
Does/Should: CALL test(func(10)); --with or without an extra set of parentheses work here too? David J.
