David Johnston wrote > > Tom Lane-2 wrote >> I kinda forgot about this bug when I went off on vacation: >> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/
>> E1UnCv4-0007oF-Bo@.postgresql > > Just to clarify: > > This patch will cause both executions of the example query to fail with > the "set-valued function..." error. > > Also, the reason the "::varchar" one did not fail was because not cast > function was ever called but the "::varchar(30)" forced a function call > and thus prompted the error when the second record and resultant > regexp_matches expression was encountered. > > Thanks! > > David J. Sorry for the imprecise English. I believe both of the following items but would like confirmation/clarification of my understanding. The whole "varchar/varchar(30)" discrepancy is bothersome and since the example forces a function-call via the use of "lower(...)", and doesn't test the non-function situation, I am concerned this patch is incorrect. If the first item is not true, i.e. this patch makes both alternatives work, then I think the wrong "solution" was chosen - or at least not fully vetted. David J. -- View this message in context: http://postgresql.1045698.n5.nabble.com/Fixing-bug-8228-set-valued-function-called-in-context-that-cannot-accept-a-set-tp5785622p5785631.html Sent from the PostgreSQL - hackers mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
