On 02/02/2011 11:45 AM, Tim Bunce wrote:
>> But why are we bothering to keep $prolog at
>> all any more, if all we're going to pass it is&PL_sv_no all the
>> time? Maybe we'll have a use for it in the future, but right now we
>> don't appear to unless I'm missing something.
> PostgreSQL::PLPerl::NYTProf would break if it was removed, so I'd rather
> it wasn't.
>
> I could work around that if there's an easy way for perl code to tell
> what version of PostgreSQL. If there isn't I think it would be worth
> adding.
>
>

Not really. It might well be good to add but that needs to wait for 
another time. I gather you're plugging in a replacement for mkfunc?

For now I'll add a comment to the code saying why it's there.

cheers

andrew

In response to

• Re: Optimize PL/Perl function argument passing [PATCH] at 2011-02-02 16:45:52 from Tim Bunce

Responses

• Re: Optimize PL/Perl function argument passing [PATCH] at 2011-02-03 16:09:51 from Tim Bunce

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Tim Bunce	Date: 2011-02-02 17:16:00
	Subject: Re: arrays as pl/perl input arguments [PATCH]
Previous:	From: David E. Wheeler	Date: 2011-02-02 17:09:59
	Subject: Re: ALTER EXTENSION UPGRADE, v3