OK, I am working on that now. I suspected that was the solution.

I met the patch author at LinuxTag and he mentioned he wasn't familiar
with the backend code yet, so I am glad to do the work to get this done


Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Are these illustrating a problem with the function definition, or is it
> > happening because it is the first time we are calling the same function
> > with one and more than one parameter?
> The function definition is broken.  While it could be fixed (by
> explicitly testing fcinfo->nargs, rather than assuming positions
> beyond nargs are valid) I am not willing to remove the opr_sanity
> check that is complaining.  Accordingly, a better solution would be
> to make two C-code wrapper functions, one for the single-parameter
> and one for the two-parameter case of each function.
>                       regards, tom lane
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your
>       joining column's datatypes do not match

  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]               |  (610) 359-1001
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?


Reply via email to