Re: REVIEW: PL/Python table functions

From: Hitoshi Harada <umi(dot)tanuki(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Jan Urbański <wulczer(at)wulczer(dot)org>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: REVIEW: PL/Python table functions
Date: 2011-02-09 03:22:38
Message-ID: AANLkTikJrDoPJcuTX-tfU=PX1cLGE7Qs_G1w9mivtj0_@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

2011/2/9 Jan Urbański <wulczer(at)wulczer(dot)org>:
> I hope this version does the right thing, while still avoiding the
> performance hit of looking up I/O funcs every time a row is returned.
> Actually, PL/Perl *does* look up the I/O funcs every time, so in the
> worst case I can just drop this optimisation. But let's hope I got it
> right this time :)

I tested it on the issue above and things around trigger, and looked
good to me. Although I'm not sure if I understand the code overall,
but the modification where I'm unclear seems covered by the regression
tests.

I mark this "Ready for Committer."

Regards,

--
Hitoshi Harada

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2011-02-09 03:25:30 Re: Extensions versus pg_upgrade
Previous Message Robert Haas 2011-02-09 03:04:56 Re: Extensions versus pg_upgrade