On 17/08/11 23:10, Tom Lane wrote: > =?UTF-8?B?SmFuIFVyYmHFhHNraQ==?= <wulc...@wulczer.org> writes: >> Here are two patches that fix two separate bugs that you found >> simultaneously. Because they're actually separate issues, it turned out >> fixing them was a bit more tricky than I expected (fixing one was >> unmasking the other one etc). > > Applied with one non-cosmetic change: I got rid of the test on > TransactionIdIsValid(arg->typrel_xmin) in PLy_input_tuple_funcs, > as well as where you'd copied that logic in PLy_output_tuple_funcs. > AFAICS skipping the update on the xmin/tid, if we're coming through > there a second time, would be simply wrong.
Thanks! The way things are set up now I think you never go through PLy_input_tuple_funcs twice, unless the cache is determined to be invalid and then you recreate the function from scratch. But of course it's better to be safe than sorry and even if I'm right and it was never executed twice, any refactoring effort might have broken it easily. Cheers, Jan -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
