Re: Questionable coding in proc.c & lock.c - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Thomas Lockhart
Subject Re: Questionable coding in proc.c & lock.c
Date
Msg-id 39824FB0.9A997D09@alumni.caltech.edu
Whole thread Raw
In response to RE: Questionable coding in proc.c & lock.c  ("Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue@tpf.co.jp>)
List pgsql-hackers
> I assume you are looking at the 'setof' processing?  Offhand it seems to
> me that this code is broken anyway: use of a relation type should refer
> to the tuple type, but should *not* imply SETOF, at least IMHO.

No, there is another routine (not remembering the name right now) which
is involved, I *think* from within gram.y, which barfs when called with
"opaque" as an argument (among other things). Can look up more info
later (I'm away this weekend).
                   - Thomas


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: select distinct
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: pre-6.1-to-6.1 conversion procs slated for destruction