| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)krosing(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: TABLE-function patch vs plpgsql |
| Date: | 2008-07-29 19:15:08 |
| Message-ID: | 14482.1217358908@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)krosing(dot)net> writes:
> On Tue, 2008-07-29 at 12:46 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> The feeling I had about it was that if we were adding
>> PROARGMODE_VARIADIC in 8.4 then there wasn't any very strong argument
>> not to add PROARGMODE_TABLE; any code looking at proargmodes is going
>> to need updates anyway.
> I missed the addition PROARGMODE_VARIADIC too.
> Has it already been added ?
> What is it supposed to do ?
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-committers/2008-07/msg00127.php
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Zdenek Kotala | 2008-07-29 19:19:03 | Re: Python 2.5 vs the buildfarm |
| Previous Message | Zdenek Kotala | 2008-07-29 19:12:45 | Re: Do we really want to migrate plproxy and citext into PG core distribution? |