Re: [BUGS] BUG #2292: Calling conventions in docs

2006-03-04 Thread Stephan Szabo
On Thu, 2 Mar 2006, Adriaan van Os wrote: > Tom Lane wrote: > > > Adriaan van Os <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> The manual is simply taking an old prejudice as a fact. > > > > No, it is stating a fact as as fact. The existence of one > > counterexample does not disprove the generalization. > >

Re: [BUGS] BUG #2292: Calling conventions in docs

2006-03-04 Thread Adriaan van Os
Tom Lane wrote: Adriaan van Os <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: The manual is simply taking an old prejudice as a fact. No, it is stating a fact as as fact. The existence of one counterexample does not disprove the generalization. Keep dreaming. Ignorance rules the world. Adriaan van Os

Re: [BUGS] BUG #2292: Calling conventions in docs

2006-03-02 Thread Tom Lane
Adriaan van Os <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > The manual is simply taking an old prejudice as a fact. No, it is stating a fact as as fact. The existence of one counterexample does not disprove the generalization. regards, tom lane ---(end of broadc

Re: [BUGS] BUG #2292: Calling conventions in docs

2006-03-02 Thread Adriaan van Os
Bruno Wolff III wrote: Adriaan van Os <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Section 32.9.5. Writing Code of the 8.1 docs says: While it may be possible to load functions written in languages other than C into PostgreSQL, this is usually difficult (when it is possible at all) because other languages,

Re: [BUGS] BUG #2292: Calling conventions in docs

2006-03-01 Thread Bruno Wolff III
On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 13:08:17 +, Adriaan van Os <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Section 32.9.5. Writing Code of the 8.1 docs says: > > >>While it may be possible to load functions written in languages other than > C into PostgreSQL, this is usually difficult (when it is possible at all) >