Re: systable_getnext_ordered

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: yamt(at)mwd(dot)biglobe(dot)ne(dot)jp (YAMAMOTO Takashi)
Cc: pgsql-novice(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: systable_getnext_ordered
Date: 2011-01-26 15:27:57
Message-ID: 15669.1296055677@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-novice

yamt(at)mwd(dot)biglobe(dot)ne(dot)jp (YAMAMOTO Takashi) writes:
> after systable_getnext_ordered returned NULL, is it ok to call it again?

I wouldn't rely on it working.

> i'm wondering because inv_truncate seems to do it and expecting NULL.

Hmm, that may well be a bug. Have you tested it?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2011-01-26 15:31:34 Re: Extensions support for pg_dump, patch v27
Previous Message Robert Haas 2011-01-26 15:25:15 Re: sepgsql contrib module

Browse pgsql-novice by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Christian Brennsteiner 2011-01-26 15:44:30 handling concurrency right why am i wrong?
Previous Message YAMAMOTO Takashi 2011-01-26 09:56:37 systable_getnext_ordered