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

Re: SRF patch (was Re: [HACKERS] Set Returning Functions

From: Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>
To: pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Subject: Re: SRF patch (was Re: [HACKERS] Set Returning Functions
Date: 2002-05-08 05:17:13
Message-ID: 3CD8B4D9.9060706@joeconway.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-patches
Joe Conway wrote:
 > Tom Lane wrote:
 >
 >> Sure.  foo.foo is valid for a column foo in a table foo, so I
 >> don't see a problem with it for a function.
 >
 > Fixed

Sorry -- when I fixed this, I introduced a new bug which only shows for
functions returning composite types, and of course I tested one 
returning a base type :(

If you do apply the last srf patch, please apply this one over it.

Thanks,

Joe


Attachment: parse_relation.patch
Description: text/plain (1.1 KB)

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Alex ShevlakovDate: 2002-05-08 08:27:21
Subject: Re: code contribution
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2002-05-08 05:16:44
Subject: Re: Creating new system catalog

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Alex ShevlakovDate: 2002-05-08 08:18:03
Subject: geometry type new code
Previous:From: Joe ConwayDate: 2002-05-08 04:34:55
Subject: SRF patch (was Re: [HACKERS] Set Returning Functions (SRF) - request for patch review and comment)

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