Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com> writes: > On 13/07/10 21:36, Tom Lane wrote: >> I wasn't terribly happy with that approach to begin with. I think we >> need to rethink.
> Do you want to go ahead with your plan of changing what's passed in > FuncInfo? I won't object if you want to do it, but I wouldn't feel > comfortable with backporting such big changes myself. I will take a look at it, but not right away. Since we have no near-term plans for new minor releases, I don't think it's urgent. > If we continue with the approach I took, we should implement the > suggestion to create a new data type for this in 9.1. That would be more > waterproof than the changes I made, if we introduce new ways to call > functions in the future. Agreed, that seems like a better solution going forward than either of the others. 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