-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
Tom Lane wrote:
> [ thinks for awhile... ] Actually, it seems to me that the present
> patch's definition of the function would be very hard to work with.
> You would normally want to work with the events one at a time.
> There isn't much you could do with the array result except unnest() it,
> and I'm a bit worried that careless usage could result in multiple
> evaluation of the function and hence loss of events. I wonder whether
> it would be better to have the function return setof record. Which, not
> incidentally, would greatly simplify adding in those extra result
> fields.
Sure that makes sense. I'll take a stab at it.
Joe
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org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=/Q5q
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
