From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Andre Lin <857348270@qq.com>
Cc: pgsql-bugs <pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org>
Cc: guofenglinux <guofenglinux@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: BUG #17606: There is still some glitch in 3f7323cbb fixing failure of MULTIEXPR_SUBLINK
Date: Mon, 05 Sep 2022 13:19:53 -0400
Message-ID: <2452776.1662398393@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <tencent_07224BC44DA2F638D13CDB1C506582EA2806@qq.com>
References: <17606-e5c8ad18d31db96a@postgresql.org>
<CAMbWs49A0FwQKq=_3pn6tRJqG5E_Y4uiUj9zAtuNbS0cTMYZ_A@mail.gmail.com>
<CAMbWs48Qf=2ZL-d-0=9rYBZUPsp6FdLysuYULTtEvErwi3w3jg@mail.gmail.com>
<2435363.1662393106@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<2439275.1662394684@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<tencent_07224BC44DA2F638D13CDB1C506582EA2806@qq.com>
"=?ISO-8859-1?B?QW5kcmUgTGlu?=" <857348270@qq.com> writes:
> > After contemplating that for awhile, by far the least painful way
> > seems to be to add the subLinkId to struct SubPlan. We can get
> > away with that in the back branches as long as we add it at the
> > end, since SubPlans don't get recorded in the catalogs.
> But let's assume that we manage to verify initplan/subplan by adding
> subLinkId to SubPlan, we still have problem. In short, the exact
> subqueryid of the new MULTIEXPR Param will be pain in the ass...
Well, yeah, that data structure would need to change.
regards, tom lane
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, 857348270@qq.com, pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org, guofenglinux@gmail.com
Subject: Re: BUG #17606: There is still some glitch in 3f7323cbb fixing failure of MULTIEXPR_SUBLINK
In-Reply-To: <2452776.1662398393@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox