Re: plpgsql versus SPI plan abstraction

From: Jan Urbański <wulczer(at)wulczer(dot)org>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: plpgsql versus SPI plan abstraction
Date: 2013-01-30 21:55:04
Message-ID: 510996B8.2080803@wulczer.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 30/01/13 22:23, Tom Lane wrote:
> BTW, I'm also wondering if it's really necessary for plpython/plpy_spi.c
> to be looking into spi_priv.h ...

As far as I can tell, it's not necessary, spi.h would be perfectly fine.

Cheers,
Jan

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Christopher Browne 2013-01-30 22:37:33 Re: autovacuum not prioritising for-wraparound tables
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2013-01-30 21:35:11 Re: pg_ctl idempotent option