On Tue, April 6, 2010 21:42, Josh Berkus wrote:
>
>> While I understand why this is confusing, it's really very normal
>> behavior for a SRF, and I don't really think it makes sense to
>> document that this SRF behaves just like other SRFs...
>
> It's likely to be used by people who do not otherwis
Magnus Hagander writes:
> On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 11:47 AM, Takahiro Itagaki
> wrote:
>> A patch attached. The name of "PGMODULEEXPORT" might be arguable.
> I agree with this in principle, but won't this break every single
> add-on module out there that supports Win32?
The patch didn't touch th
> While I understand why this is confusing, it's really very normal
> behavior for a SRF, and I don't really think it makes sense to
> document that this SRF behaves just like other SRFs...
It's likely to be used by people who do not otherwise use SRFs, and many
would not be prepared for the cons
On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 11:47 AM, Takahiro Itagaki
wrote:
>
> "Vladimir Barzionov" wrote:
>
>> Same problem was already discussed for example here
>> http://dbaspot.com/forums/postgresql/393683-re-general-custom-c-function-palloc-broken.html
>>
>> Looks like the simplest way for correcting the is
On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 1:06 AM, Josh Berkus wrote:
> On 4/5/10 9:16 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
>
>> I can't see how this is anything but a bug; as far as I know, nothing in
>> the target list is allowed to restrict the number of rows which are
>> returned by the query. We should get 7 rows, 3 of whic
