> wieck@debis.com (Jan Wieck) writes:
> >> I don't really like the description of these functions as returning
> >> something "OPAQUE", anyway, particularly when that is already being
> >> (mis) used for user-defined type input/output functions. I wish
> >> they were declared as returning something like "TUPLE".
>
> > Yes, that would clearly separate trigger proc's from
> > functions. And for unused arguments I would suggest VOID.
>
> > But I expect (hope), you want to do this all during the fmgr
> > redesign, not right now, no?
>
> Yes, this ought to go along with fmgr changes, probably. But I'm still
> unhappy about the idea of doing all these updates for long values to
> varlena datatypes without doing the fmgr update at the same time.
>
> I have been thinking some more about the schedule issue, and I still
> think it's foolhardy to try to do the long-values change by Feb 1.
> If you recall, that date was set on the assumption that we were only
> going to clean up what we had before making the release, not insert
> major new features.
The scheme followed in previous releases was to put in features just
before beta with little testing, because you can fix bugs in beta, but
not add new features. I know I did that trick a few times.
-- Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle maillist@candle.pha.pa.us | (610)
853-3000+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill,
Pennsylvania19026