| From: | "Pavel Stehule" <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Dimitri Fontaine" <dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, "Gregory Stark" <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "Martijn van Oosterhout" <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: WIP patch: convert SQL-language functions to return tuplestores |
| Date: | 2008-10-31 13:45:56 |
| Message-ID: | 162867790810310645x432c4144p5fcfdb3313e8f659@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
2008/10/31 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
> "Pavel Stehule" <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> RETURN QUERY should be implemented for lazy execution model. And it
>> should be fast and not to much dificult.
>
> Really? Consider what happens if it's inside a loop, or an exception
> block, or any other nesting construct.
>
true, I forgot, RETURN QUERY shouldn't be last statement. But when we have some
RETURN FINAL QUERY, I believe so it should be possible - we only
should to call plpgsql in two modes - standard and result of final
query.
regards
Pavel Stehule
> regards, tom lane
>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2008-10-31 14:03:22 | Distinct types |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2008-10-31 13:38:02 | Re: WIP patch: convert SQL-language functions to return tuplestores |