2008/11/6 Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > "Pavel Stehule" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> 2008/11/6 Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >>> RETURN isn't one of them. > >> It should be enhanced - my initial proposal of return query expected >> so return query is last statement, that isn't now. So we could add >> this check there. > > Well, changing the semantics of an already-released statement carries a > risk of breaking existing apps that aren't expecting it to change FOUND. > So I'd want to see a pretty strong case why this is important --- not > just that it didn't meet someone's didn't-read-the-manual expectation. >
It's should do some problems, but I belive much less than change of casting or tsearch2 integration. And actually it's not ortogonal. Every not dynamic statement change FOUND variable. regards Pavel Stehule > regards, tom lane > -- Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs
