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 correctly.
Advertising
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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? http://archives.postgresql.org
