| From: | Steve Prentice <prentice(at)cisco(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Abhijit Menon-Sen <ams(at)toroid(dot)org>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: PATCH: make plpgsql IN args mutable (v1) [REVIEW] |
| Date: | 2009-09-16 16:19:25 |
| Message-ID: | C1A58669-30CE-453F-A3B1-9833BE44A4BC@cisco.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sep 16, 2009, at 8:49 AM, Merlin Moncure wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 8:59 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
> wrote:
>> At worst it's an upward-compatible extension, or am I wrong? If it's
>> useful, which I think it is, what's the harm?
>
> are we guarding against cases like:
> select _foo, adjust_foo(_foo) from bar; -- adjust_foo is inout
Two things:
1) the patch only affects IN parameters,
2) the parameter is a local copy and doesn't affect parameters/
variables outside of its scope.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jeff Davis | 2009-09-16 16:45:52 | Re: WIP: generalized index constraints |
| Previous Message | Merlin Moncure | 2009-09-16 15:49:45 | Re: PATCH: make plpgsql IN args mutable (v1) [REVIEW] |