Re: Strange RETURN NEXT behaviour in Postgres 8.0 - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Sergey E. Koposov
Subject Re: Strange RETURN NEXT behaviour in Postgres 8.0
Date
Msg-id Pine.LNX.4.44.0502171203140.7439-100000@lnfm1.sai.msu.ru
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Strange RETURN NEXT behaviour in Postgres 8.0  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005, Tom Lane wrote:

> Richard Huxton <dev@archonet.com> writes:
> > I seem to remember some subtle problems with dropped columns and plpgsql 
> > functions - could be one of those still left.
> 
> It looks like the code that handles returning a RECORD variable doesn't
> cope with dropped columns in the function result rowtype.
> 
> (If you instead declare rec as usno%rowtype, you get a different set
> of misbehaviors after adding/dropping columns, so that code path isn't
> perfect either :-()


Finally I want to clarify, that after copying my "usno" table into another,
the problems have disappeared.

So I had experienced just exacty the bug with dropped columns. 

So, is there a chance that this bug will be fixed in some 8.X postgres ? 

Sergey




pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Merlin Moncure"
Date:
Subject: Re: win32 performance - fsync question
Next
From: Greg Stark
Date:
Subject: Re: win32 performance - fsync question