On 02/07/2012 12:47 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan<andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
>> On 11/16/2011 10:38 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Upon further review, this patch would need some more work even for the
>>> RowExpr case, because there are several places that build RowExprs
>>> without bothering to build a valid colnames list. It's clearly soluble
>>> if anyone cares to put in the work, but I'm not personally excited
>>> enough to pursue it ...
>> The patch itself causes a core dump with the current regression tests.
> Yeah, observing that was what made me write the above.
>
>> I've been looking at the other places that build RowExprs. Most of them
>> look OK and none seem clearly in need of fixing at first glance. Which
>> do you think need attention?
> In general I think we'd have to require that colnames be supplied in all
> RowExprs if we go this way. Anyplace that's trying to slide by without
> will have to be fixed. I don't recall how many places that is.
I just had a thought that maybe we could make this simpler by dummying
up a list of colnames if we don't have one, instead of that assertion.
Or am I on the wrong track.
cheers
andrew
