On Mon, 3 Apr 2000, Jan Wieck wrote:
> Karel Zak wrote:
> > I a little study on DejaNews a large discussion (October 1999) about new
> > fmgr and functions which return tuples. (IMHO 'function' is not good name
> > for this, better is 'procedure'.)
Jan, thanks for answer, I thought that I again ask about bad matter or
I send a stupid question :-)
> Here again, the proposed overhaul of the parse-/querytree is
> the reason why we don't want to tackle this issue now. At
> that time, any relation as well as a 'procedure' (function
> returning a tuple set) will become a "tuple-source". A tuple
> source is mainly an abstract node, describing the shape of
> tuples it returns, hiding how it produces them to the caller.
> This way, there is no fundamental difference between a
> relation, a procedure or an external database link any more.
Last weekend I a little explore current sources for this and the
current postgresql very "vegetates" on a relation and a example
transform statement code very depend on relation structs. Yes,
Berkeley's code design for this is not modular and abstract.
> Up to now we only have a vague idea in mind. And we're not
> sure if we'll do this huge changes in the main CVS trunk or a
> separate branch. Neither have we decided when to start on
> it, because we need a couple of key developers at the same
> time to ensure reasonable progress in that project (none of
> us can do it alone).
> After 7.0 is out, I'll try to collect all the design issues,
> break up the entire package into smaller chunks and develop a
> project plan for it.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2000-04-04 13:50:02|
|Subject: BSD/OS regression on 7.0|
|Previous:||From: Karel Zak||Date: 2000-04-04 11:55:39|
|Subject: Re: caching query results|