From: | "Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> |
---|---|
To: | "Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>, "Neil Conway" <nconway(at)klamath(dot)dyndns(dot)org> |
Cc: | "Patches" <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | pg_stat_reset round 3 |
Date: | 2002-08-05 08:40:00 |
Message-ID: | GNELIHDDFBOCMGBFGEFOGEIDCDAA.chriskl@familyhealth.com.au |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-patches |
OK, I've attached a new patch where the function is marked volatile. I
tested and you cannot have the function returning void, so I left it
returning boolean.
Chris
> -----Original Message-----
> From: pgsql-patches-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org
> [mailto:pgsql-patches-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org]On Behalf Of Christopher
> Kings-Lynne
> Sent: Monday, 5 August 2002 4:00 PM
> To: Neil Conway
> Cc: Patches
> Subject: Re: [PATCHES] pg_stat_reset round 2
>
>
> > It should be marked volatile (rather than stable), as it has
> > side-effects.
>
> OK, I'll fix it.
>
> > Wouldn't PG_RETURN_VOID() be more appropriate than returning true?
>
> I was under the impression that functions used in SELECTs cannot use
> PG_RETURN_VOID()...
>
> Chris
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html
>
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
pg_stat_reset3.txt.gz | application/x-gzip | 914 bytes |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2002-08-05 13:37:10 | Re: anonymous composite types for Table Functions (aka SRFs) |
Previous Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2002-08-05 08:00:15 | Re: pg_stat_reset round 2 |