"James Doherty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This changing of the name of what I would think is a pretty basic
> function seems pretty risky.
My, that *is* ugly isn't it? Not to mention that the replacement setval
functions are created with the wrong argument datatypes. This looks
exceedingly broken to me.
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
