Re: [WIP] UNNEST(REFCURSOR): allowing SELECT to consume data from a REFCURSOR

Hi Massimo,

Happy to help. And actually, end user (i.e., developer) feedback on the feature’s usefulness is probably one of the more important contributions.

d.

> On 10 Feb 2021, at 08:57, Massimo Fidanza <malix0(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> Hi John,
>
> I never build postgresql from source, so I must get some information on how to apply your patch and do some test. I can't review your code because I know nothing about Postgresql internals and just basic C. I am mainly a PL/SQL programmer, with experience with PHP, Python and Javascript. If I can give some contribution I will be happy, but I need some help.
>
> Massimo
>
> Il giorno dom 7 feb 2021 alle ore 22:35 Dent John <denty(at)qqdd(dot)co(dot)uk <mailto:denty(at)qqdd(dot)co(dot)uk>> ha scritto:
> Hi Massimo,
>
> Thanks for the interest, and my apologies for the late reply.
>
> I’m not particularly abandoning it, but I don’t have particular reason to make further changes at the moment. Far as I’m concerned it works, and the main question is whether it is acceptable and useful.
>
> I’d be happy if you have feedback that evolves it or might push it up the queue for commitfest review.
>
> d.
>
>> On 18 Jan 2021, at 23:09, Massimo Fidanza <malix0(at)gmail(dot)com <mailto:malix0(at)gmail(dot)com>> wrote:
>>
>> This is an interesting feature, but it seems that the author has abandoned development, what happens now? Will this be postponed from commitfest to commitfest and never be taken over by anyone?
>>
>> Massimo.
>>
>> Il giorno ven 6 mar 2020 alle ore 22:36 Dent John <denty(at)qqdd(dot)eu <mailto:denty(at)qqdd(dot)eu>> ha scritto:
>> > On 22 Feb 2020, at 10:38, Dent John <denty(at)QQdd(dot)eu <mailto:denty(at)QQdd(dot)eu>> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 18 Feb 2020, at 03:03, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com <mailto:thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> From the trivialities department, I see a bunch of warnings about
>> >> local declaration placement (we're still using C90 rules for those by
>> >> project policy):
>> >>
>> >> […]
>> >
>> > […]
>>
>> My bad. I missed on declaration.
>>
>> Another patch attached.
>>
>> d.
>