Re: pg_stat_reset round 3

I am rejecting this version of the patch because you are working out the
issues.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> OK, I've attached a new patch where the function is marked volatile. I
> tested and you cannot have the function returning void, so I left it
> returning boolean.
>
> Chris
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: pgsql-patches-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org
> > [mailto:pgsql-patches-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org]On Behalf Of Christopher
> > Kings-Lynne
> > Sent: Monday, 5 August 2002 4:00 PM
> > To: Neil Conway
> > Cc: Patches
> > Subject: Re: [PATCHES] pg_stat_reset round 2
> >
> >
> > > It should be marked volatile (rather than stable), as it has
> > > side-effects.
> >
> > OK, I'll fix it.
> >
> > > Wouldn't PG_RETURN_VOID() be more appropriate than returning true?
> >
> > I was under the impression that functions used in SELECTs cannot use
> > PG_RETURN_VOID()...
> >
> > Chris
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> > TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
> >
> > http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html
> >

[ Attachment, skipping... ]

>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
> subscribe-nomail command to majordomo(at)postgresql(dot)org so that your
> message can get through to the mailing list cleanly

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073