Re: pseudo-type record arguments for PL-functions

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Thomas Hallgren <thomas(at)tada(dot)se>
Cc: David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: pseudo-type record arguments for PL-functions
Date: 2006-05-07 01:53:46
Message-ID: 17566.1146966826@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Thomas Hallgren <thomas(at)tada(dot)se> writes:
> Yes, of course. I see that now. I was unaware that a function had an
> associated "user data". What's the semantics associated with the
> fn_extra? Does it retain its setting throughout a session (i.e. the
> lifetime of the backend process)?

No, just for the query. I'd advise using it only as a cache, although
set-returning functions sometimes use it to hold state associated with
successive rows of their result.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2006-05-07 02:19:39 Re: bug? non working casts for domain
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2006-05-06 23:10:07 Re: bug? non working casts for domain