RE: [HACKERS] tuple return from function

From: "Jackson, DeJuan" <djackson(at)cpsgroup(dot)com>
To: Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: jwieck(at)debis(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: RE: [HACKERS] tuple return from function
Date: 1998-08-13 16:15:05
Message-ID: F10BB1FAF801D111829B0060971D839F3965C8@cpsmail
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> > there is a targetlist in the func node of a C function (for
> > ExecMake... there is no difference between C, PL/TCL or
> > PL/pgSQL), it knows that the return value is a tuple or
> > tupletable or temp relation or whatever and it can manage for
> > the requested projection and for the iteration (if function
> > isset).
> >
> > But should we do that all (and the rule stuff) before 6.4?
>
> Sorry to say this, but I think we need the rewrite stuff done for 6.4.
>
> Too many bugs and limited features.
>
> The PL/pgSQL perhaps can be started now, but not ready until 6.5? I
> don't think we should delay 6.4 for PL/pgSQL, do you?
>
I personally am willing to wait another month for PL/pgSQL w/returned
tuples if it means I don't have to wait another 6 months for it. I
would also be willing to do work toward that end, if anyone needs the
help (nobody's taken me up on the offer for help yet).
And I agree about the rewrite stuff. If it's a choice between rewrite
and PL/pgSQL I say rewrite. But, I'd like to have my cake and eat it
too.
-DEJ

P.S. And while your at it, Jan, if you could drop in syntax for GROUP
creation/removal I'd be ecstatic. But I do understand the need to eat.

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 1998-08-13 16:41:22 Re: [INTERFACES] Libpq problems (not)
Previous Message D'Arcy J.M. Cain 1998-08-13 16:13:15 Re: [HACKERS] Table permissions problem