On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 5:29 PM, Merlin Moncure <[email protected]> wrote: > so #2 seems like the lowest common > denominator (it would permanently preclude #3 and would require #4 to > introduce two new functions instead of just one). #1 of course would > bolt on to #2.
oops, got #1 and #2 backwards there. merlin -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list ([email protected]) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
