From: pgsql-general-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:pgsql-general-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of David Greco Came across this problem when trying to assign to a variable a field from a record that could come from multiple cursors. PG throws an error – “ ERROR: type of parameter 7 (bigint) does not match that when preparing the plan (unknown)”. If I make the null column in c1 null::bigint to match cursor c2, it works fine. Where is this plan coming from? Why would it match c1 to a plan coming from c2? In reality, the two cursors in question are wildly different- a join of about 10 completely different tables. When I saw the text of the error I was a bit concerned that it was being overly flexible in matching the current cursor to another. It errors out on the assignment to I, not the fetch. (maybe the fetch isn’t actually being done until the data in r is used). CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION demo.test_cursor_bug ( a IN integer ) RETURNS void AS $BODY$ DECLARE c1 cursor FOR SELECT 1 as shipmentid, null as olmid; c2 cursor FOR SELECT 2 as shipmentid, 32::bigint as olmid; r record; i bigint; BEGIN IF ( a = 0 ) THEN open c1; fetch c1 INTO r; close c1; END IF; IF ( a = 1 ) THEN open c2; fetch c2 INTO r; close c2; END IF; i := r.olmid; END; $BODY$ LANGUAGE plpgsql; select demo.test_cursor_bug(0); select demo.test_cursor_bug(1); i := r.olmid; I’m guessing that the system evaluates the fact that since “i” is a bigint that r.olmid must be a bigint as well. When it goes to find and retrieve olmid at parameter position 7 it expects to find a bigint but instead finds an undefined type with a NULL and so it throws an error. The only solution to your example is to cast the explicit NULL to a bigint. In your real-life situation there are possible other options but generally speaking you need to remove the ambiguity explicitly. The exact mechanics behind why this specific message is being thrown is beyond me but regardless the fundamental reason and solution remain constant. You would get a different but similar message if you avoided cursors and used direct SQL instead. The use of cursors just causes a slightly different ordering of operations to occur. But, it is not “match[ing] c1 to a plan coming from c2” but rather it is matching the plan for c1 to the declared type for “i”. David J. |
