| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: zeros in oidvector type |
| Date: | 2000-01-11 14:53:54 |
| Message-ID: | 4105.947602434@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> The reason I ask is that there are some parts of the code that try to
> find the number of args by looking for the _first_ non-zero entry in the
> list.
Where? This is certainly broken for anything that needs to deal with
an arbitrary pg_proc entry, but it might be OK in limited contexts.
Also, if you are thinking of stuff that looks at *index* definitions
rather than *function* definitions, I think it's OK.
> I changed those to look for the _last_ non-zero entry, but it
> sounds like that is still wrong.
I'm dubious about changing something like that without fairly close
investigation and/or a known bug to fix. If those bits of code are
wrong, they were wrong before the FUNC_MAX_ARGS change ... and if
they weren't wrong, maybe they are now.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2000-01-11 15:06:10 | Re: [HACKERS] Who fried this? |
| Previous Message | Paul M. Aoki | 2000-01-11 14:26:10 | Re: [HACKERS] Historical trivia (was Re: First Major Open Source Database) |