On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 12:06 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >> On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 9:57 AM, Dave Page <dp...@pgadmin.org> wrote: >>> On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 2:49 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> Any objections to me committing this? >>> >>> Might wanna fix this first: >>> >>> +PG_FUNCTION_INFO_V1(ssl_veresion); >>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >> Wow. It works remarkably well without fixing that, but I'll admit >> that does seem lucky. > > Well, it's got no arguments, which is the main thing that works > differently in call protocol V1. I think you'd find that the > PG_RETURN_NULL case doesn't really work though ...
It seems to work, but it might be that something's broken under the hood. Anyhow, committed with that correction. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise Postgres Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
