"Jonah H. Harris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> While looking to add some functionality to PL/pgSQL, I found that the
> rfno member of the PLpgSQL_recfield structure is unused. This patch
> is just a cleanup
No, that'd be wrong. Note here:
/*
* PLpgSQL_datum is the common supertype for PLpgSQL_expr, PLpgSQL_var,
* PLpgSQL_row, PLpgSQL_rec, PLpgSQL_recfield, PLpgSQL_arrayelem, and
* PLpgSQL_trigarg
*/
typedef struct
{ /* Generic datum array item */
int dtype;
int dno;
} PLpgSQL_datum;
I am not real sure why the code is inconsistent about spelling the
second field's name differently in some of the structs, but it seems
like a bad idea --- as you've demonstrated, it invites confusion.
What would probably be better is a patch to rename exprno, rfno, etc
to all be called dno to make this connection more obvious.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
