On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 1:08 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:

> I looked into the issue reported in bug #14448,
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20161205143037.
> 4377.60754%40wrigleys.postgresql.org
> The core of it seems to be that expandRTE() will report the type and
> typmod of a column of a VALUES construct as being exprType() and
> exprTypmod() of the corresponding expression in the first row of
> the VALUES.  It's okay to handle data type that way, because we've
> coerced all the expressions for the column to the same type; but
> we have *not* coerced them to the same typmod.  So some of the values
> from later rows may fail to meet the claimed typmod.  This is not good.
> In order to fix this, we first have to decide what the semantics ought
> to be.  I think there are two plausible definitions:
> 1. If all the expressions in the VALUES column share the same typmod,
> use that typmod, else use -1.
> 2. Use -1 whenever there is more than one VALUES row.
> #1 is what we do for some comparable cases such as UNION and CASE.
> However, it's potentially quite expensive for large VALUES constructs.
> #2 would be a lot cheaper, and given that this is the first complaint
> we've gotten in all the years we've had multi-row-VALUES support, it's
> not clear that deriving a precise typmod is really all that useful
> for VALUES.
> I have no strong preference between these two, but I think whatever
> we do needs to be back-patched.  The behavior described in the bug
> report is definitely broken.
> Thoughts?

‚ÄčCan we be precise enough to perform #2 if the top-level (or immediate
parent) command is an INSERT - the existing table is going to enforce its
own typemod anyway, otherwise go with #1?

‚ÄčLacking that possibility I'd say that documenting that our treatment of
typemod in VALUES is similar to our treatment of typemod in function
arguments would be acceptable. This suggests a #3 - simply use "-1"
regardless of the number of rows in the VALUES expression.

David J.

Reply via email to