Re: [HACKERS] Progress report: buffer refcount bugs and SQL functions - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From wieck@debis.com (Jan Wieck)
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Progress report: buffer refcount bugs and SQL functions
Date
Msg-id m11UAnj-0003kzC@orion.SAPserv.Hamburg.dsh.de
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] Progress report: buffer refcount bugs and SQL functions  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] Progress report: buffer refcount bugs and SQL functions  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane wrote:

>
> wieck@debis.com (Jan Wieck) writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
>
> What we really need to make functions-returning-sets work properly is
> an implementation somewhat like aggregate functions.  We need to make
> a list of all the Iter nodes present in a targetlist and cycle through
> the values returned by each in a methodical fashion (run the rightmost
> through its full cycle, then advance the next-to-rightmost one value,
> run the rightmost through its cycle again, etc etc).  Also there needs
> to be an understanding of the hierarchy when an Iter appears in the
> arguments of another Iter's function.  (You cycle the upper one for
> *each* set of arguments created by cycling its sub-Iters.)

    Shouldn't a function returning a SET of tuples cause a proper
    join?


Jan

--

#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me.                                  #
#========================================= wieck@debis.com (Jan Wieck) #

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: wieck@debis.com (Jan Wieck)
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Problem with new function
Next
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Progress report: buffer refcount bugs and SQL functions