aboutsummaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/src/tutorial
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorTom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>2022-08-03 17:33:42 -0400
committerTom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>2022-08-03 17:33:42 -0400
commit1aa8dad41ffad99923a658389ee948e88394491c (patch)
tree97a0a1edbbc50b6d601912f6421e1d3031b6e480 /src/tutorial
parentbc76f5ac483a08fe2a699ce82d31a9a07520d502 (diff)
downloadpostgresql-1aa8dad41ffad99923a658389ee948e88394491c.tar.gz
postgresql-1aa8dad41ffad99923a658389ee948e88394491c.zip
Fix incorrect tests for SRFs in relation_can_be_sorted_early().
Commit fac1b470a thought we could check for set-returning functions by testing only the top-level node in an expression tree. This is wrong in itself, and to make matters worse it encouraged others to make the same mistake, by exporting tlist.c's special-purpose IS_SRF_CALL() as a widely-visible macro. I can't find any evidence that anyone's taken the bait, but it was only a matter of time. Use expression_returns_set() instead, and stuff the IS_SRF_CALL() genie back in its bottle, this time with a warning label. I also added a couple of cross-reference comments. After a fair amount of fooling around, I've despaired of making a robust test case that exposes the bug reliably, so no test case here. (Note that the test case added by fac1b470a is itself broken, in that it doesn't notice if you remove the code change. The repro given by the bug submitter currently doesn't fail either in v15 or HEAD, though I suspect that may indicate an unrelated bug.) Per bug #17564 from Martijn van Oosterhout. Back-patch to v13, as the faulty patch was. Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/17564-c7472c2f90ef2da3@postgresql.org
Diffstat (limited to 'src/tutorial')
0 files changed, 0 insertions, 0 deletions