Tom Lane wrote:
Jorge Godoy <jgodoy@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
Em Thursday 18 October 2007 16:37:59 Joe Conway escreveu:
The row is pretty useless without a rowid in this context -- it seems
like the best thing to do would be to skip those rows entirely. Of
course you could argue I suppose that it ought to throw an ERROR and
bail out entirely. Maybe a good compromise would be to skip the row but
throw a NOTICE?
If I were using it and having this problem I'd rather have an ERROR.
I can think of four reasonably credible alternatives:
1. Treat NULL rowid as a category in its own right. This would conform
with the behavior of GROUP BY and DISTINCT, for instance.
2. Throw an ERROR if NULL rowid is seen.
Not being a heavy user of crosstab(), I'm not sure which of these is the
most appropriate, but #1 seems the most defensible from a theoretical
perspective.
Since the bug has gone undiscovered this long, it seems obvious that
not too many people actually try to feed null rowids to crosstab; so
expending a lot of effort to fix it is probably not reasonable.
If you don't like #1 I'd vote for #2 second.
Hadn't really thought about #1, but now that you mention it, it does
make sense. #1 gets my vote too. I'll pick this up next week if that's OK.
Joe
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
