| From: | Ian Barwick <ian(dot)barwick(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: doc: update PL/pgSQL sample loop function |
| Date: | 2019-09-12 04:00:02 |
| Message-ID: | 7361769b-53cd-260e-2d0a-a76cfaa76963@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2019/09/11 14:44, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 1, 2019 at 9:09 AM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>
>> The current example shows the usage of looping in plpgsql, so as such
>> there is no correctness issue, but OTOH there is no harm in updating
>> the example as proposed by Ian Barwick. Does anyone else see any
>> problem with this idea? If we agree to proceed with this update, it
>> might be better to backpatch it for the sake of consistency though I
>> am not sure about that.
>>
>
> While checking the patch in back-branches, I noticed that it doesn't
> get applied to 9.4 due to the way the example forms the string. I
> have done the required changes for 9.4 as well and attached is the
> result.
Aha, I had it in my head that 9.4 was being deprecated soon and didn't
check that far back, but turns out it's around until Feb. 2020.
> Ian, if possible, can you once check the patch for 9.4?
Looks good, thanks for catching that!
Regards
Ian Barwick
--
Ian Barwick https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dilip Kumar | 2019-09-12 04:14:49 | Re: let's kill AtSubStart_Notify |
| Previous Message | Richard Guo | 2019-09-12 02:59:24 | Re: Pulling up direct-correlated ANY_SUBLINK |