On Thu, 28 Jun 2001, Hannu Krosing wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com> writes:
> > > 1. Adding a new relkind that means 'record'. So we use
> > > pg_class, pg_attribute and pg_type as we do for tables
> > > and views to describe a structure.
> > It seems fairly ugly to have a pg_class entry for something that
> > isn't a table or even a table-like entity.
> I dont think that sequence is any more table-like than record.
> And difference between type and class ia also quite debatable in
> most languages ;)
> Also there seems to be more existing creative use of pg_class - what
> does relkind='s' record for pg_variable stand for ?
> > Otherwise this proposal sounds good. Jan and I talked about it earlier;
> > one point I recall is that the portal/cursor based approach can
> > internally support the existing multiple-call implementation of
> > functions returning sets. That is, when you call the portal to get the
> > next tuple, it might hand you back a tuple saved from a previous
> > function call, or it might turn around and call the function again to
> > get the next tuple.
> > BTW, once we've had this for a release or two, I'd like to rip out the
> > existing support for calling functions-returning-sets during SELECT list
> > evaluation, so that expression evaluation could be simplified and sped
> > up. But we can wait for people to change over their existing uses
> > before we do that.
> How hard would it be to turn this around and implement RETURN AND
> for at least PL/PGSQL, and possibly C/Perl/Python ... ?
Cannot talk about plpgsql, but for c this would be probably implemented
with setjmp and with perl with goto. Probably not very complex.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Jan Wieck||Date: 2001-06-28 01:08:38|
|Subject: Re: functions returning records|
|Previous:||From: Philip Warner||Date: 2001-06-27 23:54:14|
|Subject: Re: pg_largeobject is a security hole |