Re: [HACKERS] New CORRESPONDING clause design - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Surafel Temesgen
Subject Re: [HACKERS] New CORRESPONDING clause design
Date
Msg-id CALAY4q-CsJj=DHY8ztCn3bTAbJM43hKh8nV3L-+ru1G_n0muZQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] New CORRESPONDING clause design  (Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] New CORRESPONDING clause design  (Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers

hi

Some errors are related to just CORRESPONDING without any columns. So using expr doesn't help here. So parse node CORRESPONDING can solve both issues.   
 In current implementation pointing to a node means pointing to a node’s first element so I don’t think we can be able to point to CORRESPONDING without any columns

I find out that there is already a node prepare for the case called A_Const.
The attached patch use that node 

Regards 
Surafel
Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Joe Conway
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] scram and \password
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] scram and \password