Tom Lane said:
> Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> writes:
>>> I would agree that seems a little odd ;). Would this be something we
>>> want done for 8.0?
>
>> I think we'd better. Otherwise, people will get used to the broken
>> syntax.
>
> Agreed. Someone's going to step up and patch this, no?
>
> (Not me --- I've already wasted more hours than I could afford this
> week on plperl.)
>
I knew I should have looked at this closer when Peter made his complaint -
it sounded familiar. IIRC it was actually a point I raised about the
original code, and it was fixed. At any rate, last night Abhijit Menon-Sen
and I looked at the code and got confused becuse it appears to have been
fixed ;-). "rows" only contains data and only exists if the result is from a
successful select. "processed" is the row count, and is always present.
So it's a case of bad documentation, which we will fix very shortly. Sorry
for the noise.
cheers
andrew
