Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: TABLE-function patch vs plpgsql

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)krosing(dot)net>
Cc: Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: TABLE-function patch vs plpgsql
Date: 2008-07-29 19:15:08
Message-ID: 14482.1217358908@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)krosing(dot)net> writes:
> On Tue, 2008-07-29 at 12:46 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> The feeling I had about it was that if we were adding
>> PROARGMODE_VARIADIC in 8.4 then there wasn't any very strong argument
>> not to add PROARGMODE_TABLE; any code looking at proargmodes is going
>> to need updates anyway.

> I missed the addition PROARGMODE_VARIADIC too. 
> Has it already been added ?
> What is it supposed to do ?

http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-committers/2008-07/msg00127.php

			regards, tom lane

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Zdenek KotalaDate: 2008-07-29 19:19:03
Subject: Re: Python 2.5 vs the buildfarm
Previous:From: Zdenek KotalaDate: 2008-07-29 19:12:45
Subject: Re: Do we really want to migrate plproxy and citext into PG core distribution?

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group