On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 12:22, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> wrote:

> This looks pretty good. 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.

I don't see any reason to keep it around.

In response to

• Re: Optimize PL/Perl function argument passing [PATCH] at 2011-01-31 19:22:37 from Andrew Dunstan

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Kevin Grittner	Date: 2011-02-01 17:01:39
	Subject: Re: SSI patch version 14
Previous:	From: Tom Lane	Date: 2011-02-01 16:43:29
	Subject: Re: Error code for "terminating connection due to conflict with recovery"