On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 4:10 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 5:51 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 4:14 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> Although I have done a bit of review of this patch, it needs more
> >> thought than I have so far had time to give it.  I will update again
> >> by Tuesday.
> >
> > I've reviewed this a bit further and have discovered an infelicity.
> Also, independent of the fix for this particular issue, I think it
> would be smart to apply the attached patch to promote the assertion
> that failed here to an elog().  If we have more bugs of this sort, now
> or in the future, I'd like to catch them even in non-assert-enabled
> builds by getting a sensible error rather than just by failing an
> assertion.  I think it's our general practice to check node types with
> elog() rather than Assert() when the nodes are coming from some
> far-distant part of the code, which is certainly the case here.
> I plan to commit this without delay unless there are vigorous,
> well-reasoned objections.

Fine with me. Serves the purpose for which I added the Assert, but in a
better manner. May be the error message can read "non-Var
nodes/targets/expressions not expected in target list". I am not sure what
do we call individual (whole) members of target list.

Best Wishes,
Ashutosh Bapat
EnterpriseDB Corporation
The Postgres Database Company

Reply via email to