Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

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: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
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.


In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

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

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2018 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group