Fix oversight in CALL argument handling, and do some minor cleanup.

CALL statements cannot support sub-SELECTs in the arguments of the called
procedure, since they just use ExecEvalExpr to evaluate such arguments.
Teach transformSubLink() to reject the case, as it already does for other
contexts in which subqueries are not supported.

In passing, s/EXPR_KIND_CALL/EXPR_KIND_CALL_ARGUMENT/ to make that enum
symbol line up more closely with the phrasing of the error messages it is
associated with.  And fix someone's weak grasp of English grammar in the
preceding EXPR_KIND_PARTITION_EXPRESSION addition.  Also update an
incorrect comment in resolve_unique_index_expr (possibly it was correct
when written, but nowadays transformExpr definitely does reject SRFs here).

Per report from Pavel Stehule --- but this resolves only one of the bugs
he mentions.

Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAFj8pRDxOwPPzpA8i+AQeDQFj7bhVw-dR2==rfWZ3zMGkm568Q@mail.gmail.com

1 files changed, 5 insertions, 6 deletions

diff --git a/src/backend/parser/parse_clause.c b/src/backend/parser/parse_clause.c
index 9bafc24083b..3a02307bd99 100644
--- a/src/backend/parser/parse_clause.c
+++ b/src/backend/parser/parse_clause.c
@@ -3106,12 +3106,11 @@ resolve_unique_index_expr(ParseState *pstate, InferClause *infer,
 		}
 
 		/*
-		 * transformExpr() should have already rejected subqueries,
-		 * aggregates, and window functions, based on the EXPR_KIND_ for an
-		 * index expression.  Expressions returning sets won't have been
-		 * rejected, but don't bother doing so here; there should be no
-		 * available expression unique index to match any such expression
-		 * against anyway.
+		 * transformExpr() will reject subqueries, aggregates, window
+		 * functions, and SRFs, based on being passed
+		 * EXPR_KIND_INDEX_EXPRESSION.  So we needn't worry about those
+		 * further ... not that they would match any available index
+		 * expression anyway.
 		 */
 		pInfer->expr = transformExpr(pstate, parse, EXPR_KIND_INDEX_EXPRESSION);