Philip Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> My theory is that if such a piece of code gets a performance gain, then the
> code is probably worth including, assuming that the function manager does
> not need to be butchered to achieve the desired goal. Does that sound
> reasonable?
Some real results would certainly bolster your case.
> So the obvious question is - in the opinion of people who know the code,
> can a function-result-cache be implemented with a lifetime of a single
> statement, without butchering the function manager?
I'd suggest trying to make it a function call handler. Look at the way
Peter did "SECURITY DEFINER" functions for inspiration.
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
