What I can't see from the postings, is what incident or problem
prompted the change.
Was there test or query that failed because it chose the wrong
Do you have an example which failed with the old code and needed
the changes to make it work?
I see pg_proc has "pronargs" and "proargtypes" columns, is this
not enough to ensure that the correct procedure is called?
Or am I off at a tangent again!!
> Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
> > Bruce,
> > If you have the relevant discussions in a neat bundle I'd like
> > to have a read through them to see what the issues are.
> > The other curiosity is the creation of an _<typname> type, which
> > I believe is an array type, at the time of type creation.
> > I can't remember seeing this in previous versions.
> > Thanks,
> > Keith.
> OK, here are the relivant postings. Please make a suggestion for a fix.
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Taral||Date: 1998-09-24 01:09:49|
|Subject: RE: [HACKERS] Re: Results of port of Sept 18 port of PostgreSQL|
|Previous:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 1998-09-23 22:21:44|
|Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Yipes, I'm getting bit by duplicate tuples|