Re: SRF patch (was Re: [HACKERS] Set Returning Functions

From: Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>
To: pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Subject: Re: SRF patch (was Re: [HACKERS] Set Returning Functions
Date: 2002-05-08 05:17:13
Message-ID: 3CD8B4D9.9060706@joeconway.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches

Joe Conway wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>
>> Sure. foo.foo is valid for a column foo in a table foo, so I
>> don't see a problem with it for a function.
>
> Fixed

Sorry -- when I fixed this, I introduced a new bug which only shows for
functions returning composite types, and of course I tested one
returning a base type :(

If you do apply the last srf patch, please apply this one over it.

Thanks,

Joe

Attachment Content-Type Size
parse_relation.patch text/plain 1.1 KB

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alex Shevlakov 2002-05-08 08:27:21 Re: code contribution
Previous Message Tom Lane 2002-05-08 05:16:44 Re: Creating new system catalog

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alex Shevlakov 2002-05-08 08:18:03 geometry type new code
Previous Message Joe Conway 2002-05-08 04:34:55 SRF patch (was Re: [HACKERS] Set Returning Functions (SRF) - request for patch review and comment)