Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> Joe Conway wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Yeah, makes plenty of sense for C funcs. I don't think there's an
> argument about that. But for that we don't need any threading
> infrastructure.
Oh sure -- sorry I wasn't clear. I wasn't trying to support the idea of
threading so much as the idea that value-per-call itself has merit for a
number of use cases.
Joe
