| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Richard Huxton <dev(at)archonet(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>, Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>, Islam Hegazy <islheg(at)hotmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: modifying the tbale function |
| Date: | 2007-03-19 16:36:28 |
| Message-ID: | 45FEBC0C.4020601@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Richard Huxton wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>>
>> Actually, I think we could teach the PLs to do it - just not
>> transparently, so we'd need to mark which functions used the new
>> protocol. Such functions would get a state object as an implied first
>> argument, so in plperl it might work like this (for a
>> generate_series-like function):
>
>> To support this I think we'd need to do something like:
>>
>> create function mygs(int, int)
>> returns setof int
>> language plperl
>> with srfstate
>> as $$ ... $$;
>
> Is this not what we do with aggregate functions at present?
>
Yes, more or less. That's what made me think of it.
OTOH, before we rush out and do it someone needs to show that it's a net
win. I agree with Tom that making tuplestore faster would probably be a
much better investment of time.
cheers
andrew
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2007-03-19 16:48:33 | Re: modifying the tbale function |
| Previous Message | Richard Huxton | 2007-03-19 16:25:19 | Re: modifying the tbale function |