Re: doc: update PL/pgSQL sample loop function

From: Ian Barwick <ian(dot)barwick(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: doc: update PL/pgSQL sample loop function
Date: 2019-09-12 04:00:02
Message-ID: 7361769b-53cd-260e-2d0a-a76cfaa76963@2ndquadrant.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2019/09/11 14:44, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 1, 2019 at 9:09 AM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>
>> The current example shows the usage of looping in plpgsql, so as such
>> there is no correctness issue, but OTOH there is no harm in updating
>> the example as proposed by Ian Barwick. Does anyone else see any
>> problem with this idea? If we agree to proceed with this update, it
>> might be better to backpatch it for the sake of consistency though I
>> am not sure about that.
>>
>
> While checking the patch in back-branches, I noticed that it doesn't
> get applied to 9.4 due to the way the example forms the string. I
> have done the required changes for 9.4 as well and attached is the
> result.

Aha, I had it in my head that 9.4 was being deprecated soon and didn't
check that far back, but turns out it's around until Feb. 2020.

> Ian, if possible, can you once check the patch for 9.4?

Looks good, thanks for catching that!

Regards

Ian Barwick

--
Ian Barwick https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Dilip Kumar 2019-09-12 04:14:49 Re: let's kill AtSubStart_Notify
Previous Message Richard Guo 2019-09-12 02:59:24 Re: Pulling up direct-correlated ANY_SUBLINK