Re: function defined (or not), more worries on version 10->14 upgrade - Mailing list pgsql-general

From David G. Johnston
Subject Re: function defined (or not), more worries on version 10->14 upgrade
Date
Msg-id CAKFQuwYyhSQ764tT8cm8HkFeuEsN6d+La=S-wnKFAeZEMWVrmw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: function defined (or not), more worries on version 10->14 upgrade  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: function defined (or not), more worries on version 10->14 upgrade  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-general
On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 2:20 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
Rob Sargent <robjsargent@gmail.com> writes:
> I'm about to unleash new versions of the above and related functions
> (args will change), so a drops are imminent. Any reason to hold off on that?

While I've not yet looked at the code, I've got no reason to think
this is anything except fragile argument parsing in \df and \sf.


I'm unsure about the "extra argument ignored" bit but the rest of "not found" issues are due to operator error; specifying a pattern that tries to match the name and arguments at the same time when that isn't how the meta-command is defined to be used.

David J.

pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: function defined (or not), more worries on version 10->14 upgrade
Next
From: Rob Sargent
Date:
Subject: Re: function defined (or not), more worries on version 10->14 upgrade