Tom Lane wrote:
> Actually, I was going to suggest modifying the declaration of the
> dblink function(s) to take integer instead of int2. Is there a
> really good reason why they take int2? If not, there's little point
> in putting up with a notational headache throughout the 7.3 cycle.
> The problem should go away again in 7.4, when we tweak the parser to
> initially type "2" as "2::int2" ... but for now the path of least
> resistance would seem to be avoiding declaring functions to take int2.
Good point. I only used int2 to be consistent with pg_class.relnatts.
Here is a revised patch. This uses an int4 input with a bit of checking to be
sure the given value fits in an int2 variable. This seemed the easiest and
safest approach. Please apply if there are no objections.
In response to
pgsql-patches by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2002-09-23 18:11:53|
|Subject: Re: contrib/dblink regression test failure fix |
|Previous:||From: Alvaro Herrera||Date: 2002-09-23 17:33:50|
|Subject: Re: Implementation of LIMIT on DELETE and UPDATE statements|