BUG #2096: bug in a SPI sample document

"Yoshihisa Nakano" <nakano.yosihisa@jp.fujitsu.com> writes:

=> INSERT INTO a VALUES (execq('SELECT * FROM a', 0) + 1);
INFO: EXECQ: 0
INSERT 167713 1

I tried this example, but INFO showed 1, not 0.

Yeah ... the INSERT won't show an OID by default anymore, either.
Fixed; thanks for the report!

regards, tom lane

This documentation bug has been fixed. We currently have:

=> SELECT * FROM a;
x
---
1 -- no rows in a (0) + 1
(1 row)

=> INSERT INTO a VALUES (execq('SELECT * FROM a', 0) + 1);
INFO: EXECQ: 1
INSERT 0 1

Is the "INSERT 0 1" right? I see an oid in your example, but that might
be because we no longer user oids by default.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yoshihisa Nakano wrote:

The following bug has been logged online:

Bug reference: 2096
Logged by: Yoshihisa Nakano
Email address: nakano.yosihisa@jp.fujitsu.com
PostgreSQL version: 8.1.0
Operating system: RedHat Enterprise Linux ES 3.0
Description: bug in a SPI sample document
Details:

There is a difference between the result of the SPI
example in the doc and the actual result of that.

Doc 40.5 Examples
=> SELECT * FROM a;
x
---
1 -- no rows in a (0) + 1
(1 row)

=> INSERT INTO a VALUES (execq('SELECT * FROM a', 0) + 1);
INFO: EXECQ: 0
INSERT 167713 1

I tried this example, but INFO showed 1, not 0. I
think the value of INFO in doc is wrong, because the
value of row is 1 at this time.

This bug seems to exist also in 7.3.x, 7.4.x and 8.0.x.

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

--
Bruce Momjian http://candle.pha.pa.us
SRA OSS, Inc. http://www.sraoss.com

+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

Bruce Momjian wrote:

This documentation bug has been fixed. We currently have:

=> SELECT * FROM a;
x
---
1 -- no rows in a (0) + 1
(1 row)

=> INSERT INTO a VALUES (execq('SELECT * FROM a', 0) + 1);
INFO: EXECQ: 1
INSERT 0 1

Is the "INSERT 0 1" right? I see an oid in your example, but that might
be because we no longer user oids by default.

Yes. IIRC, Tom had already pointed out that and fixed.

http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-bugs/2005-12/msg00071.php

Regards,
Yoshihisa Nakano