On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 1:36 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > I'm against putting I/O coercion semantics into tupconvert, period. Ever. > If plpgsql wants that behavior rather than something more consistent > with the rest of the system, it needs to implement it for itself.
I'm sure that can be done. I don't think anyone is objecting to that, just trying to get useful behavior out of the system. Are you going to commit a stripped-down version of the patch? -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
