X-Original-To: pgsql-hackers-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.144]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55A783CB822 for ; Fri, 17 Dec 2004 02:17:59 +0000 (GMT) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 04238-04 for ; Fri, 17 Dec 2004 02:17:52 +0000 (GMT) Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A0923CB803 for ; Fri, 17 Dec 2004 02:17:54 +0000 (GMT) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id iBH2HiHj013491; Thu, 16 Dec 2004 21:17:44 -0500 (EST) To: Michael Fuhr , Oliver Elphick Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org Subject: Re: [INTERFACES] PL/Python: How do I use result methods? In-reply-to: <18394.1102277733@sss.pgh.pa.us> References: <1097937269.12716.28.camel@linda> <20041016165600.GA71873@winnie.fuhr.org> <20041204221858.GA73013@winnie.fuhr.org> <18394.1102277733@sss.pgh.pa.us> Comments: In-reply-to Tom Lane message dated "Sun, 05 Dec 2004 15:15:33 -0500" Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 21:17:43 -0500 Message-ID: <13490.1103249863@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.005 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=AWL X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200412/583 X-Sequence-Number: 62365 I wrote: > Michael Fuhr writes: >> Any comments on this? The 8.0.0rc1 PL/Python documentation, >> Section 39.3 "Database Access", still mentions the nrows and >> status methods, but they don't work. Here's Oliver's original >> message and my followup: >> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-interfaces/2004-10/msg00019.php >> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-interfaces/2004-10/msg00020.php > It looks like someone #ifdef'd out those sections after observing that > the PLy_result_methods table isn't used anyplace. Perhaps the place > where it should have been used got lost in some earlier patch? > Just out of curiosity, what sort of patch would it take to enable these > functions? If it's at all nontrivial I'd vote to hold over to 8.1, > but if it's a line or two of code that got lost at some point, it would > seem like a reasonable bug fix ... Comparing the result and plan method types made it pretty obvious how those methods are supposed to be hooked up, and it was indeed a one-liner omission in the original source code. So I've fixed it. regards, tom lane