On Sun, Sep 1, 2019 at 9:09 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.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.
Ian, if possible, can you once check the patch for 9.4?
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com