Re: [HACKERS] tuple return from function - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Bruce Momjian
Subject Re: [HACKERS] tuple return from function
Date
Msg-id 199808131222.IAA12098@candle.pha.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to tuple return from function  (jwieck@debis.com (Jan Wieck))
Responses Re: [HACKERS] tuple return from function  (jwieck@debis.com (Jan Wieck))
List pgsql-hackers
>
>     But don't expect
>
>         select salary(change_sal('Jan', '1000.00'))
>
>     to work. It causes an
>
>         ERROR:  Tuple is too big: size 200064
>
>     Even if  you  have  a  function  not  updating  or  inserting
>     something,  the generated querytree causes the function to be
>     called twice. So a simple function just doing one select  and
>     returning a tuple type causes two scans.
>
>     What  I absolutely don't know is, what is it good for? How is
>     the correct syntax to access more than  one  field  from  the
>     returned tuple?
>
>     Shouldn't  the  call  of a function returning a tuple without
>     the surrounding attrname(...) have a targetlist too?  If  so,
>     the  complete  targetlist  must  be  used  when  building the
>     projection tuple, not only the first TLE as it is implemented
>     now.
>
>     And  I think the parser/planner must not generate nested func
>     nodes.
>
>     I'm really willing to dive into, but should I do it before or
>     after  6.4?  Doing it before would mean 6.4 NOT AT THE END OF
>     THIS MONTH!

I have felt that the 'return set' has only worked in limited cases.
Vadim seems to know there are problems, particularly with free'ing
memory.

My question is whether this relates to the rules system rewrite or the
PL/SQL language module?

--
Bruce Momjian                          |  830 Blythe Avenue
maillist@candle.pha.pa.us              |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  (610) 353-9879(w)
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  (610) 853-3000(h)

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Table permissions problem
Next
From: darcy@druid.net (D'Arcy J.M. Cain)
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Table permissions problem