Philip Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Not at all. The call is, as you point out, defining the protocl for
> enquiry. Nothing more. With 7.1, the process above is sufficient. There is
> no need to call *in this version* because pg_fmgr_api_version returns
> enough information when combined with the existence of a well-defined entry
> point. Future versions would need to call the entry point, I would expect.
Well, I was planning to go ahead and call the entry point anyway, just
so that it could tell me "it's an old-style function" if it wanted to.
Not sure that'll ever happen in practice, but that case ought to work
IMHO.
regards, tom lane
- Re: [HACKERS] [rfc] new CREATE FUNCTION (and more) Marko Kreen
- Re: [HACKERS] [rfc] new CREATE FUNCTION (and more) Nathan Myers
- Re: [HACKERS] [rfc] new CREATE FUNCTION (and more) Tom Lane
- Re: [HACKERS] [rfc] new CREATE FUNCTION (and more) Philip Warner
- Re: [HACKERS] [rfc] new CREATE FUNCTION (and mo... Tom Lane
- Re: [HACKERS] [rfc] new CREATE FUNCTION (an... Philip Warner
- Re: [HACKERS] [rfc] new CREATE FUNCTIO... Tom Lane
- Re: [HACKERS] [rfc] new CREATE FUNCTIO... Philip Warner
- Re: [HACKERS] [rfc] new CREATE FUNCTIO... Tom Lane
- Re: [HACKERS] [rfc] new CREATE FUNCTIO... Philip Warner
- Re: [HACKERS] [rfc] new CREATE FUNCTIO... Tom Lane
- Re: [HACKERS] [rfc] new CREATE FUNCTIO... Tom Lane
- Re: [HACKERS] [rfc] new CREATE FUNCTION (and more) Marko Kreen
- Re: [HACKERS] [rfc] new CREATE FUNCTION (and more) Philip Warner
