Thread: (BUG ?) unprefixed oid -> ERROR: cache lookup failed for function
(9.1.4)
Hello,
following query is wrong in my understanding, as it doesn't specify which oid to use (pg_proc or pg_roles ?)
but it is accepted by the parser
select pg_get_functiondef(oid) -- should be pg_get_functiondef(pg_proc.oid)
from pg_proc join pg_roles
on ( pg_proc.proowner=pg_roles.oid )
LIMIT 1
ERROR: cache lookup failed for function 10
EXPLAIN VERBOSE:
Limit (cost=0.00..0.31 rows=1 width=4)
Output: (pg_get_functiondef(pg_authid.oid))
-> Nested Loop (cost=0.00..1028.66 rows=3337 width=4)
Output: pg_get_functiondef(pg_authid.oid)
Join Filter: (pg_proc.proowner = pg_authid.oid)
-> Seq Scan on pg_catalog.pg_proc (cost=0.00..318.37 rows=3337 width=4)
Output: pg_proc.proname, pg_proc.pronamespace, pg_proc.proowner, pg_proc.prolang, pg_proc.procost, pg_proc.prorows, pg_proc.provariadic, pg_proc.proisagg, pg_proc.proiswindow, pg_proc.prosecdef, pg_proc.proisstrict, pg_proc.proretset, pg_proc.provolatile, pg_proc.pronargs, pg_proc.pronargdefaults, pg_proc.prorettype, pg_proc.proargtypes, pg_proc.proallargtypes, pg_proc.proargmodes, pg_proc.proargnames, pg_proc.proargdefaults, pg_proc.prosrc, pg_proc.probin, pg_proc.proconfig, pg_proc.proacl
-> Materialize (cost=0.00..1.21 rows=14 width=4)
Output: pg_authid.oid
-> Seq Scan on pg_catalog.pg_authid (cost=0.00..1.14 rows=14 width=4)
Output: pg_authid.oid
best regards,
Marc Mamin
"Marc Mamin" <M.Mamin@intershop.de> writes: > following query is wrong in my understanding, as it doesn't specify > which oid to use (pg_proc or pg_roles ?) > but it is accepted by the parser > select pg_get_functiondef(oid) -- should be > pg_get_functiondef(pg_proc.oid) > from pg_proc join pg_roles > on ( pg_proc.proowner=pg_roles.oid ) > LIMIT 1 The reason that happens is that pg_roles has an explicit oid column (ie, oid is a regular not system column in the view) so that name takes precedence over the system column available from pg_proc. Having to have an explicit oid column in pg_roles isn't very nice, because of precisely this type of inconsistency, but since it's a view not a table there's not a lot of alternatives. regards, tom lane