Tom Lane wrote:
>Thomas Hallgren <thhal@mailblocks.com> writes:
>
>
>>I'm not sure what you mean. Earlier you rejected my bug-report on the
>>iterator because you it was the callers responsability to deal with it
>>(hence this patch). Are you now suggesting that we fix that bug instead?
>>
>>
>
>Quite honestly, I dunno. I agree that there's something lacking in this
>stack of behaviors, but I don't think any of the solutions suggested so
>far actually fix it ...
>
>
Ok, in that case, please allow this patch to go through. It will not
cause any harm and until a better solution is architected, it does solve
my immediate problem.
Regards,
Thomas Hallgren
