Re: INOUT parameters in procedures

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: INOUT parameters in procedures
Date: 2018-03-15 21:21:46
Message-ID: 28322.1521148906@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 6:58 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Not fixed by 8df5a1c868cc28f89ac6221cff8e2b5c952d0eb6?

> I think you meant to type "now fixed by". (unless your compiler is pickier
> than mine)

Actually what I meant was "doesn't that commit fix it for you?"

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jeremy Finzel 2018-03-15 21:40:40 Re: worker_spi.naptime in worker_spi example
Previous Message Pavel Stehule 2018-03-15 21:13:04 missing support of named convention for procedures