On Mon, Jun 20, 2005 at 03:44:24PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> I [Tom Lane] wrote:
> > Actually, I would say the bug is exec_assign_value's. There is nothing
> > at all wrong with a function returning one of its input values; for
> > example the smaller/larger functions all do that.
>
> For that ma
Dave Chapeskie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Jun 20, 2005 at 03:44:24PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> This makes it perfectly clear that the problem is that exec_assign_value
>> must copy the given value before it frees the old, just in case they're
>> the same. (Hmm, I wonder if we can shortc
"Dave Chapeskie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> array_cat() has a bug when passed an empty array. The
> code attempts to optimise/short-circuit this case and
> returns a pointer to the non-empty argument. This is
> bad/wrong. Especially when used in a construct like:
> foo := foo ||
> since
I wrote:
> Actually, I would say the bug is exec_assign_value's. There is nothing
> at all wrong with a function returning one of its input values; for
> example the smaller/larger functions all do that.
For that matter, you don't need a function at all:
regression=# create or replace function c
