Andres Freund <andres@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
