You can not select more than 25 topics Topics must start with a letter or number, can include dashes ('-') and can be up to 35 characters long.

Tom Lane d359f71ac0 Fix non-equivalence of VARIADIC and non-VARIADIC function call formats. ... For variadic functions (other than VARIADIC ANY), the syntaxes foo(x,y,...) and foo(VARIADIC ARRAY[x,y,...]) should be considered equivalent, since the former is converted to the latter at parse time. They have indeed been equivalent, in all releases before 9.3. However, commit 75b39e790 made an ill-considered decision to record which syntax had been used in FuncExpr nodes, and then to make equal() test that in checking node equality --- which caused the syntaxes to not be seen as equivalent by the planner. This is the underlying cause of bug #9817 from Dmitry Ryabov. It might seem that a quick fix would be to make equal() disregard FuncExpr.funcvariadic, but the same commit made that untenable, because the field actually *is* semantically significant for some VARIADIC ANY functions. This patch instead adopts the approach of redefining funcvariadic (and aggvariadic, in HEAD) as meaning that the last argument is a variadic array, whether it got that way by parser intervention or was supplied explicitly by the user. Therefore the value will always be true for non-ANY variadic functions, restoring the principle of equivalence. (However, the planner will continue to consider use of VARIADIC as a meaningful difference for VARIADIC ANY functions, even though some such functions might disregard it.) In HEAD, this change lets us simplify the decompilation logic in ruleutils.c, since the funcvariadic/aggvariadic flag tells directly whether to print VARIADIC. However, in 9.3 we have to continue to cope with existing stored rules/views that might contain the previous definition. Fortunately, this just means no change in ruleutils.c, since its existing behavior effectively ignores funcvariadic for all cases other than VARIADIC ANY functions. In HEAD, bump catversion to reflect the fact that FuncExpr.funcvariadic changed meanings; this is sort of pro forma, since I don't believe any built-in views are affected. Unfortunately, this patch doesn't magically fix everything for affected 9.3 users. After installing 9.3.5, they might need to recreate their rules/views/indexes containing variadic function calls in order to get everything consistent with the new definition. As in the cited bug, the symptom of a problem would be failure to use a nominally matching index that has a variadic function call in its definition. We'll need to mention this in the 9.3.5 release notes.		12 years ago
..
src	Fix non-equivalence of VARIADIC and non-VARIADIC function call formats.	12 years ago
KNOWN_BUGS	…
MISSING_FEATURES	…
Makefile	Add maintainer-check target	15 years ago
TODO	…
bug.template	Stamp 9.3.4.	12 years ago