On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 5:29 PM, Merlin Moncure <mmonc...@gmail.com> wrote: > so #2 seems like the lowest common > denominator (it would permanently preclude #3 and would require #4 to > introduce two new functions instead of just one). #1 of course would > bolt on to #2.
oops, got #1 and #2 backwards there. merlin -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
