Re: WIP patch: convert SQL-language functions to return tuplestores

From: Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Pavel Stehule" <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Gregory Stark" <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Martijn van Oosterhout" <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>
Subject: Re: WIP patch: convert SQL-language functions to return tuplestores
Date: 2008-10-29 16:54:50
Message-ID: 200810291754.52760.dfontaine@hi-media.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Le mercredi 29 octobre 2008, Tom Lane a écrit :
> Now of course the bigger problem with either this syntax or yours is
> that attaching such a property to a function is arguably the Wrong Thing
> in the first place. Which one is the best way is likely to depend on
> the calling query more than it does on the function.

Let the planner figure this out, and add in some starting cost considerations
too maybe? That sounds even better, yes.

> However, I see no
> solution to that problem except function inlining; and if the function
> gets inlined then all this discussion is moot anyhow.

How to inline PLs functions?
--
dim

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jonah H. Harris 2008-10-29 17:01:30 Re: pre-MED
Previous Message David Fetter 2008-10-29 16:40:00 pre-MED