Re: TABLE-function patch vs plpgsql - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: TABLE-function patch vs plpgsql
Date
Msg-id 14482.1217358908@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: TABLE-function patch vs plpgsql  (Hannu Krosing <hannu@krosing.net>)
List pgsql-hackers
Hannu Krosing <hannu@krosing.net> writes:
> On Tue, 2008-07-29 at 12:46 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> The feeling I had about it was that if we were adding
>> PROARGMODE_VARIADIC in 8.4 then there wasn't any very strong argument
>> not to add PROARGMODE_TABLE; any code looking at proargmodes is going
>> to need updates anyway.

> I missed the addition PROARGMODE_VARIADIC too. 
> Has it already been added ?
> What is it supposed to do ?

http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-committers/2008-07/msg00127.php
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Zdenek Kotala
Date:
Subject: Re: Do we really want to migrate plproxy and citext into PG core distribution?
Next
From: Zdenek Kotala
Date:
Subject: Re: Python 2.5 vs the buildfarm