Tom Lane wrote:
> Adriaan Joubert <a(dot)joubert(at)albourne(dot)com> writes:
> > I saw the message about lengths in indexes,
> > but howcome this is relevant for procedures?
> In 6.5 (and before), there's an index on the prosrc field of pg_proc,
> ie, the definition of the procedure. There's not any real good reason
> to have such an index, so we've removed it for 7.0 ... but in 6.5 it's
> there and it creates problems if you have long procedure definitions :-(
The usage of it is only #ifdef'd out!
It's a very old standing FEATURE, that doesn't work anyhow.
It has to do with tuple set's, and as far as I read the code
in question, the (no longer supported either) nested dot
notation looked for a 'sql' language function returning a set
of tuples and created that on the fly. Therefore, it checked
by the required functions source text if it exists.
IIRC the #ifdef is somewhat like SETS_FIXED.
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#========================================= wieck(at)debis(dot)com (Jan Wieck) #
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: sszabo||Date: 1999-12-29 23:59:18|
|Subject: Re: [HACKERS] correlated subquery |
|Previous:||From: Jan Wieck||Date: 1999-12-29 23:27:16|
|Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Index corruption|