Tom Lane wrote:
> "Florian G. Pflug" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>why doesn't postgres allow "internal" as statetype?
>
> Because it's not a type. If it were, it certainly wouldn't have the
> semantics you seem to hope for (ie, "pass by reference type but don't
> actually try to copy the bits")
"Florian G. Pflug" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> why doesn't postgres allow "internal" as statetype?
Because it's not a type. If it were, it certainly wouldn't have the
semantics you seem to hope for (ie, "pass by reference type but don't
actually try to copy the bits")
r
