On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 10:51 AM, Jan Urbański <wulc...@wulczer.org> wrote: > On 11/02/11 16:47, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 9:06 PM, Alex Hunsaker <bada...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 02:09, Jan Urbański <wulc...@wulczer.org> wrote: >>> It seems a bit heavy handed to invalidate and remake the entire >>> plpython function whenever we hit this case. I think we could get away >>> with setting ->is_rowtype = 2 in PLy_procedure_valid() instead. I >>> suppose it should be fairly rare case anyway so... *shrug*. >> >> This last comment might make me think that we're looking for a new >> version of this patch, but the comment on the CommitFest application >> says "looks good". So I'm not sure whether this should be marked >> Waiting on Author or Ready for Committer, but the current status of >> Needs Review looks wrong. > > I'm not planning on writing a new version of the patch. AIUI Alex said, > that there's a possible optimization to be done, but the gain is so > small that it doesn't matter.
OK, marked Ready for Committer. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
