Re: [Plperlng-devel] Re: Concern about new PL/Perl

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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