X-Original-To: pgsql-sql-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF6C59DC8E0 for ; Fri, 27 Jan 2006 10:55:39 -0400 (AST) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 97138-03 for ; Fri, 27 Jan 2006 10:55:42 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6DF0A9DC86C for ; Fri, 27 Jan 2006 10:55:36 -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 k0REtdg5002049; Fri, 27 Jan 2006 09:55:39 -0500 (EST) To: andrew cc: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org Subject: Re: filtering after join In-reply-to: <29d3b0b90601270117t2a8ec180x469b2a65f6b29a13@mail.gmail.com> References: <29d3b0b90601250927o2a5ee6e6mc33a7647da4438ce@mail.gmail.com> <200601261222.34906.peter_e@gmx.net> <29d3b0b90601260454g35817213o7d5a0e8a1e53ddf7@mail.gmail.com> <200601261759.31184.peter_e@gmx.net> <29d3b0b90601270110w645eab52k41ea6e385f297ae4@mail.gmail.com> <29d3b0b90601270117t2a8ec180x469b2a65f6b29a13@mail.gmail.com> Comments: In-reply-to andrew message dated "Fri, 27 Jan 2006 10:17:48 +0100" Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2006 09:55:39 -0500 Message-ID: <2048.1138373739@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.1 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.100] X-Spam-Score: 0.1 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200601/197 X-Sequence-Number: 23986 andrew writes: > I got errors in this query. I have a function complete(record) which > takes a generic record type data. But it seems cannot be applied to a > sub-select result: As I seem to recall having mentioned several times already, PG 7.3 is really, really weak in this area. (If you ever got it to work, which I doubt you will, you'd probably then start to notice how badly it leaks memory for whole-row operations...) You should either forget this idea or invest the effort to move up to PG 8.1. regards, tom lane