X-Original-To: pgsql-sql-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4B74D8045 for ; Tue, 22 Nov 2005 15:47:30 -0400 (AST) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 08458-06 for ; Tue, 22 Nov 2005 19:47:30 +0000 (GMT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13C85D6E11 for ; Tue, 22 Nov 2005 15:47:27 -0400 (AST) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id jAMJlM8r013493; Tue, 22 Nov 2005 14:47:22 -0500 (EST) To: Kyle Bateman cc: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org Subject: Re: unplanned sub-select error? In-reply-to: <43837E9B.20306@actarg.com> References: <43826850.1020302@actarg.com> <6603.1132621854@sss.pgh.pa.us> <43837E9B.20306@actarg.com> Comments: In-reply-to Kyle Bateman message dated "Tue, 22 Nov 2005 13:24:59 -0700" Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2005 14:47:22 -0500 Message-ID: <13492.1132688842@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.003 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.003] X-Spam-Score: 0.003 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200511/211 X-Sequence-Number: 23462 Kyle Bateman writes: > Sorry, you're right. I have now confirmed that this only happens when > updating via a view/rule (as you suspected). Attached is a minimalist > sql file that demonstrates the same error message from a blank > database. I'm using 8.1.0. I'm pretty sure this problem did not exist > on 8.0.3. Thanks for the test case. I've confirmed it fails here in CVS tip but not in 8.0 branch, so indeed it must be a new bug. Will look into it. regards, tom lane