From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Andreas Pflug <pgadmin(at)pse-consulting(dot)de>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: ruleutils with pretty-print option |
Date: | 2003-07-27 19:52:23 |
Message-ID: | 200307271952.h6RJqNN16958@candle.pha.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-patches |
OK, I am working on that now. I suspected that was the solution.
I met the patch author at LinuxTag and he mentioned he wasn't familiar
with the backend code yet, so I am glad to do the work to get this done
correctly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > Are these illustrating a problem with the function definition, or is it
> > happening because it is the first time we are calling the same function
> > with one and more than one parameter?
>
> The function definition is broken. While it could be fixed (by
> explicitly testing fcinfo->nargs, rather than assuming positions
> beyond nargs are valid) I am not willing to remove the opr_sanity
> check that is complaining. Accordingly, a better solution would be
> to make two C-code wrapper functions, one for the single-parameter
> and one for the two-parameter case of each function.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your
> joining column's datatypes do not match
>
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2003-07-27 20:10:12 | Re: Eliminate information_schema from oid2name listing |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2003-07-27 19:39:34 | Re: [HACKERS] PATCH: Memory leaks on start-up |