"David G. Johnston" writes:
> Might I suggest the following:
> + /*
> + * For each action, modify procForm to type-safely set the new value.
> + * However, because the SET clause is repeatable we handle it
> + * a bit differently, modifying the underlying tuple directly. So
> + * make sure to lea
"David G. Johnston" writes:
> On Tue, Apr 19, 2022 at 7:07 PM Bryn Llewellyn
> wrote:
>> This is the bug.
> While I haven't experimented with this for confirmation, what you are
> proposing here (set + parallel safe) is an impossible runtime
> combination (semantic rule) but perfectly valid to w
