| From: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Rob Sargent <robjsargent(at)gmail(dot)com>, Adrian Klaver <adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com>, "pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: function defined (or not), more worries on version 10->14 upgrade |
| Date: | 2022-04-15 21:24:07 |
| Message-ID: | CAKFQuwYyhSQ764tT8cm8HkFeuEsN6d+La=S-wnKFAeZEMWVrmw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 2:20 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Rob Sargent <robjsargent(at)gmail(dot)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.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Rob Sargent | 2022-04-15 21:30:19 | Re: function defined (or not), more worries on version 10->14 upgrade |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2022-04-15 21:20:24 | Re: function defined (or not), more worries on version 10->14 upgrade |