On Wed, Feb 02, 2011 at 12:10:59PM -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > On 02/02/2011 11:45 AM, Tim Bunce wrote: > >>But why are we bothering to keep $prolog at > >>all any more, if all we're going to pass it is&PL_sv_no all the > >>time? Maybe we'll have a use for it in the future, but right now we > >>don't appear to unless I'm missing something. > > > >PostgreSQL::PLPerl::NYTProf would break if it was removed, so I'd rather > >it wasn't. > > > >I could work around that if there's an easy way for perl code to tell > >what version of PostgreSQL. If there isn't I think it would be worth > >adding. > > Not really. It might well be good to add but that needs to wait for > another time.
Ok. > I gather you're plugging in a replacement for mkfunc? Yes. > For now I'll add a comment to the code saying why it's there. Thanks. Tim. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
