2012/2/2 Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>:
>
>
> On 02/02/2012 04:35 AM, Abhijit Menon-Sen wrote:
>>
>> At 2012-02-01 18:48:28 -0500, andrew(dot)dunstan(at)pgexperts(dot)com wrote:
>>>
>>> For now I'm inclined not to proceed with that, and leave it as an
>>> optimization to be considered later if necessary. Thoughts?
>>
>> I agree, there doesn't seem to be a pressing need to do it now.
>>
>
>
> OK, here's my final version of the patch for constructor functions. If
> there's no further comment I'll go with this.

These function are super, Thank you

Do you plan to fix a issue with row attribute names in 9.2?

Regards

Pavel

>
> cheers
>
> andrew
>
>
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
>

In response to

• Re: JSON output functions. at 2012-02-02 15:15:33 from Andrew Dunstan

Responses

• Re: JSON output functions. at 2012-02-02 23:46:47 from Andrew Dunstan

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Robert Haas	Date: 2012-02-02 17:45:40
	Subject: Re: heap_tuple_needs_freeze false positive
Previous:	From: Tom Lane	Date: 2012-02-02 17:18:26
	Subject: Re: spgist text_ops and LIKE