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 |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-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 | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
parse_relation.patch | text/plain | 1.1 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alex Shevlakov | 2002-05-08 08:27:21 | Re: code contribution |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-05-08 05:16:44 | Re: Creating new system catalog |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alex Shevlakov | 2002-05-08 08:18:03 | geometry type new code |
Previous Message | Joe Conway | 2002-05-08 04:34:55 | SRF patch (was Re: [HACKERS] Set Returning Functions (SRF) - request for patch review and comment) |