| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Asif Rehman <asifr(dot)rehman(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: why can't plpgsql return a row-expression? |
| Date: | 2012-12-06 19:04:44 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYqoeq9vojzPOWvXsJZHVL0xGBeW=aUyNMH1kMkvMBZyg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 1:36 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> I'm against putting I/O coercion semantics into tupconvert, period. Ever.
> If plpgsql wants that behavior rather than something more consistent
> with the rest of the system, it needs to implement it for itself.
I'm sure that can be done. I don't think anyone is objecting to that,
just trying to get useful behavior out of the system.
Are you going to commit a stripped-down version of the patch?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2012-12-06 19:08:50 | Re: How to check whether the row was modified by this transaction before? |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2012-12-06 19:04:13 | Re: ALTER TABLE ... NOREWRITE option |