| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Tim Bunce <Tim(dot)Bunce(at)pobox(dot)com>, "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Status of plperl inter-sp calling |
| Date: | 2010-01-06 16:41:46 |
| Message-ID: | 4111.1262796106@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> Next question: what do we do if a direct-called function calls
> return_next()? That at least must surely take effect in the caller's
> context - the callee won't have anywhere to stash the the results at all.
Whatever do you mean by "take effect in the caller's context"? I surely
hope it's not "return the row to the caller's caller, who likely isn't
expecting anything of the kind".
I suspect Tim will just answer that he isn't going to try to
short-circuit the call path for set-returning functions.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-01-06 16:51:30 | Re: 'replication' keyword on .pgpass (Streaming Replication) |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2010-01-06 16:34:40 | Re: Status of plperl inter-sp calling |