Alex Hunsaker <bada...@gmail.com> writes:
> That being said it seems we failed to take any magic (aka string
> overloads) that a blessed reference might have. Ill see about
> submitting a patch for 9.3 (9.2 just entered beta). Anyone have any
> thoughts on if we should backpatch a fix?
Right offhand I'd be +1 for making that change, but not for backpatching
it; but I'm not a big plperl user. Would such a case have worked before
9.1? If it did and we broke it in 9.1, that would be a good reason to
back-patch into 9.1. If it never worked, then it sounds like a new
feature.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs
