Re: TABLE-function patch vs plpgsql

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Pavel Stehule" <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: TABLE-function patch vs plpgsql
Date: 2008-07-18 05:19:19
Message-ID: 10356.1216358359@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

"Pavel Stehule" <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Maybe we can use some well defined implicit record, maybe NEW (or
> RESULT, ROW_RESULT, ROW, TABLE_ROW, ...) like trigger - some like

That sounds like exactly the sort of kluge-solution that I didn't
want to get involved with ...

Anyway, the core feature is in, and we still have several months
before 8.4 feature freeze to debate how plpgsql ought to interact
with it.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jonah H. Harris 2008-07-18 05:21:37 Re: [PATCH]-hash index improving
Previous Message Pavel Stehule 2008-07-18 05:13:32 Re: TABLE-function patch vs plpgsql