Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes: > On 2017-01-18 08:43:24 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: >> ... except for one thing. The more I look at it, >> the more disturbed I am by the behavioral change shown in rangefuncs.out >> --- that's the SRF-in-one-arm-of-CASE issue.
> I'm fine with leaving it as is in the patch, but I'm also fine with > changing things to ERROR. Personally I don't think it matters much, and > we can whack it back and forth as we want later. Thus I'm inclined to > commit it without erroring out; since presumably we'll take some time > deciding on what exactly we want to prohibit. I agree. If we do decide to throw an error, it would best be done in parse analysis, and thus would be practically independent of this patch anyway. >> * This bit in ExecProjectSRF was no good: >> + else if (IsA(gstate->arg, FuncExprState) && >> + ((FuncExpr *) gstate->arg->expr)->funcretset) > Argh. That should have been FunExprState->func->fn_retset. Nope; that was my first thought as well, but fn_retset isn't valid if init_fcache hasn't been run yet, which it won't have been the first time through. So I think we can push this patch now and get on with the downstream patches. Do you want to do the honors, or shall I? regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers