"Jonah H. Harris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 3:57 PM, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I am not real sure why the code is inconsistent about spelling the
>> second field's name differently in some of the structs, but it seems
>> like a bad idea --- as you've demonstr
On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 3:57 PM, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am not real sure why the code is inconsistent about spelling the
> second field's name differently in some of the structs, but it seems
> like a bad idea --- as you've demonstrated, it invites confusion.
> What would probably b
Tom Lane escribió:
> "Jonah H. Harris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > While looking to add some functionality to PL/pgSQL, I found that the
> > rfno member of the PLpgSQL_recfield structure is unused. This patch
> > is just a cleanup
>
> No, that'd be wrong.
Oops. Reverting.
--
Alvaro Herre
Jonah H. Harris escribió:
> While looking to add some functionality to PL/pgSQL, I found that the
> rfno member of the PLpgSQL_recfield structure is unused. This patch
> is just a cleanup and doesn't seem along the same lines as the patches
> in CommitFest... should I add it to the wiki anyway?
N
"Jonah H. Harris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> While looking to add some functionality to PL/pgSQL, I found that the
> rfno member of the PLpgSQL_recfield structure is unused. This patch
> is just a cleanup
No, that'd be wrong. Note here:
/*
* PLpgSQL_datum is the common supertype for PLpgSQL
While looking to add some functionality to PL/pgSQL, I found that the
rfno member of the PLpgSQL_recfield structure is unused. This patch
is just a cleanup and doesn't seem along the same lines as the patches
in CommitFest... should I add it to the wiki anyway?
--
Jonah H. Harris, Senior DBA
myY
