From: | "Andrew Dunstan" <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, <plperlng-devel(at)pgfoundry(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [Plperlng-devel] Re: Concern about new PL/Perl |
Date: | 2004-11-19 11:29:20 |
Message-ID: | 1666.24.211.141.25.1100863760.squirrel@www.dunslane.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane said:
> Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> writes:
>>> I would agree that seems a little odd ;). Would this be something we
>>> want done for 8.0?
>
>> I think we'd better. Otherwise, people will get used to the broken
>> syntax.
>
> Agreed. Someone's going to step up and patch this, no?
>
> (Not me --- I've already wasted more hours than I could afford this
> week on plperl.)
>
I knew I should have looked at this closer when Peter made his complaint -
it sounded familiar. IIRC it was actually a point I raised about the
original code, and it was fixed. At any rate, last night Abhijit Menon-Sen
and I looked at the code and got confused becuse it appears to have been
fixed ;-). "rows" only contains data and only exists if the result is from a
successful select. "processed" is the row count, and is always present.
So it's a case of bad documentation, which we will fix very shortly. Sorry
for the noise.
cheers
andrew
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Oleg Bartunov | 2004-11-19 12:35:06 | Re: Adding a suffix array index |
Previous Message | Troels Arvin | 2004-11-19 10:42:38 | Adding a suffix array index |