Re: modifying the tbale function - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Joe Conway
Subject Re: modifying the tbale function
Date
Msg-id 45FEDB94.2030505@joeconway.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: modifying the tbale function  (Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>)
Responses Re: modifying the tbale function  (Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>)
List pgsql-hackers
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> 
> Are we really sure that this isn't a solution in search of a problem?

The need for value-per-call is real (examples mentioned down-thread) and 
was anticipated from day one of the SRF implementation (in fact the 
first patch I wrote was value-per-call, not materialize). But when we 
realized that value-per-call was not going to work very well for any PL 
*except* C-functions, we switched to SFRM_Materialize as the only 
supported mode, with SFRM_ValuePerCall left as a to-be-coded-later 
option (see SetFunctionReturnMode in execnodes.h).

Personally I think it is worth having SFRM_ValuePerCall even if only C 
functions can make use of it.

Joe



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Islam Hegazy"
Date:
Subject: Re: modifying the tbale function
Next
From: Andrew Dunstan
Date:
Subject: Re: modifying the tbale function