On 10/28/2010 02:11 PM, Garick Hamlin wrote:
On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 01:03:24PM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
On 10/28/2010 12:34 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
BTW, maybe we could have the best of both worlds? Dunno about Perl,
but in some languages it would be possible to instantiate the hash
only if
On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 01:03:24PM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>
> On 10/28/2010 12:34 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> >
> > BTW, maybe we could have the best of both worlds? Dunno about Perl,
> > but in some languages it would be possible to instantiate the hash
> > only if it's actually touched. Pas
On 10/28/2010 12:34 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
BTW, maybe we could have the best of both worlds? Dunno about Perl,
but in some languages it would be possible to instantiate the hash
only if it's actually touched. Passing the data as a hash definitely
seems to fit with the spirit of things otherwise
On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 11:34 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan writes:
>> On 10/28/2010 11:54 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>>> Alternatively, maybe the feature could be exposed in a way where you
>>> don't actually calculate the values unless requested, ie provide some
>>> sort of inquiry functio
2010/10/28 Andrew Dunstan :
>
>
> On 10/28/2010 11:54 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>>
>> Alternatively, maybe the feature could be exposed in a way where you
>> don't actually calculate the values unless requested, ie provide some
>> sort of inquiry function instead of always precomputing a hash.
>> +1
Andrew Dunstan writes:
> On 10/28/2010 11:54 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>> Alternatively, maybe the feature could be exposed in a way where you
>> don't actually calculate the values unless requested, ie provide some
>> sort of inquiry function instead of always precomputing a hash.
>> +1 .. some li
On 10/28/2010 11:54 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
Alternatively, maybe the feature could be exposed in a way where you
don't actually calculate the values unless requested, ie provide some
sort of inquiry function instead of always precomputing a hash.
+1 .. some like get_function_info()
Yeah, th
2010/10/28 Tom Lane :
> Andrew Dunstan writes:
>> While we were discussing allowing generic record type arguments to
>> plperl functions, Tom suggested that we should expose the type
>> information about the record members to plperl. I think if we do that we
>> should probably expand it somewhat
2010/10/28 Andrew Dunstan :
> While we were discussing allowing generic record type arguments to plperl
> functions, Tom suggested that we should expose the type information about
> the record members to plperl. I think if we do that we should probably
> expand it somewhat to all arguments, so that
Andrew Dunstan writes:
> While we were discussing allowing generic record type arguments to
> plperl functions, Tom suggested that we should expose the type
> information about the record members to plperl. I think if we do that we
> should probably expand it somewhat to all arguments, so tha
While we were discussing allowing generic record type arguments to
plperl functions, Tom suggested that we should expose the type
information about the record members to plperl. I think if we do that we
should probably expand it somewhat to all arguments, so that for
non-trigger functions, we'
11 matches
Mail list logo
