On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 12:06 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 9:57 AM, Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 2:49 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>>> Any objections to me committing this?
>>> Might wanna fix this first:
>> Wow. It works remarkably well without fixing that, but I'll admit
>> that does seem lucky.
> Well, it's got no arguments, which is the main thing that works
> differently in call protocol V1. I think you'd find that the
> PG_RETURN_NULL case doesn't really work though ...
It seems to work, but it might be that something's broken under the hood.
Anyhow, committed with that correction.
The Enterprise Postgres Company
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2010-07-27 23:47:20|
|Subject: Re: Parsing of aggregate ORDER BY clauses |
|Previous:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2010-07-27 23:41:29|
|Subject: Re: Review: Re: [PATCH] Re: [HACKERS] Adding xpath_exists function|