-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 Tom Lane wrote: > [ thinks for awhile... ] Actually, it seems to me that the present > patch's definition of the function would be very hard to work with. > You would normally want to work with the events one at a time. > There isn't much you could do with the array result except unnest() it, > and I'm a bit worried that careless usage could result in multiple > evaluation of the function and hence loss of events. I wonder whether > it would be better to have the function return setof record. Which, not > incidentally, would greatly simplify adding in those extra result > fields.
Sure that makes sense. I'll take a stab at it. Joe -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJKd54DAAoJEDfy90M199hleEoP/i9JAI3c+5LMrz90ntAoEthf PzC6+QpjKIEeU5vF/NFZl8r7yWiCqlw/015clGQ4bzZfoCVwKiabGl9ziH8G1xzz ruuM/dr3H8gZfl69LdN65t+t0P1QLSLeNeOQbtLjm0n9439lCt8r8q3joxw2sKIK HHN6BBpyINHrlgkfw0CjRYLm0kEFW2Jj76AQyOs0V4HYtK4d+Zmr0Ut3q9aTHg7h 1MYtkPHvzq0ploKmMtx7+zpqEI3JPzyWA2hxeCZJfHHM5Y7j2eadDeN+CqWaDjs5 2T1HrtXIgtzeQWBV7J8q3rGTFc3YXTzv0mCYveHULUByl/vIx6Lind6ErbPd7gig sTUdTo77JK7J4oV4PAZfJDRMIjUiKZGHoOPMeCIIXPyuCIYCFv/YTR3lFlEllwws 3ocY/0BZzNtUiCvH7CLD0BiSNF2sSfG6bC1I9FbHwoezlPCLKInjUoRyknGSnHAV i2W5IIdmHiwxR5sSy+zNAUASFaK2shcvn2SX0hLbPAsDAMnPa1nYVNuqoojb1HWG uvYXtRHoBrrtQkXl2F8NzSBmiaxfG02YY5Y2o6zkv8C/UG5+eaUIbF7SKcZMmHwJ Ar/Zdz/eY0c/Fcy3ttfHc4C03E6qn1aDKHD+sXgDMDHfbGafDGfGhntW92ipngP1 CXbtfEYLgWcO4eGHusSB =/Q5q -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
