On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 8:20 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 11:02 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> We may need to document it, but not like that; it's (a) incorrect and >> (b) unhelpful to the reader, who is left without any clear idea of what >> to avoid. I think that the real issue here doesn't have anything to do >> with NEW/OLD as such, but is related to the representational difference >> between record and row variables. > > I agree. That's precisely what I'm confused about. >
- Show quoted text - On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 8:20 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 11:02 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> We may need to document it, but not like that; it's (a) incorrect and >> (b) unhelpful to the reader, who is left without any clear idea of what >> to avoid. I think that the real issue here doesn't have anything to do >> with NEW/OLD as such, but is related to the representational difference >> between record and row variables. > > I agree. That's precisely what I'm confused about. Additionally, plpgsql uses "record" seemingly to refer to row variables, so pointing folks to this conversation may not necessarily clear up confusion.... -- Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs
