| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Alexey Klyukin <alexk(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: arrays as pl/perl input arguments [PATCH] |
| Date: | 2011-01-13 04:57:20 |
| Message-ID: | 9044.1294894640@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"David E. Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com> writes:
> On Jan 11, 2011, at 3:44 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>> I think there's at least a danger of breaking legacy code doing that. Say you have some code that does a ref test on the argument, for example. The behavior would now be changed.
> I think that'd be pretty rare.
I'm not seeing how an unsupported fear that there *might* be some
incompatibilities is a good argument for instead adopting an approach
that absolutely, positively, guaranteed *WILL* break everybody's code.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Fujii Masao | 2011-01-13 05:10:26 | Re: pg_ctl failover Re: Latches, signals, and waiting |
| Previous Message | Fujii Masao | 2011-01-13 04:52:20 | Re: pg_primary_conninfo |