I wrote: > Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes: >> I don't think there's a danger similar to f0c7b789a here, because the >> "caller" (i.e. the node that needs the expression's result) expects >> resvalue/null to be overwritten.
> Yeah, that's what I thought when I wrote the broken code in ExecEvalCase, > too. It was wrong. Along the same line, I notice that you've got some expr step types overwriting their own input, the various flavors of EEOP_BOOLTEST for example. Maybe that's all right but it doesn't really give me a warm feeling, especially when other single-argument operations like EEOP_BOOL_NOT_STEP are done differently. Again, I think a clear explanation of the design is essential to allow people to reason about whether this sort of trickery is safe. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers