Joe Conway wrote:
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Are we really sure that this isn't a solution in search of a problem?
The need for value-per-call is real (examples mentioned down-thread)
and was anticipated from day one of the SRF implementation (in fact
the first patch I wrote was value-per-call, not materialize). But when
we realized that value-per-call was not going to work very well for
any PL *except* C-functions, we switched to SFRM_Materialize as the
only supported mode, with SFRM_ValuePerCall left as a
to-be-coded-later option (see SetFunctionReturnMode in execnodes.h).
Personally I think it is worth having SFRM_ValuePerCall even if only C
functions can make use of it.
Yeah, makes plenty of sense for C funcs. I don't think there's an
argument about that. But for that we don't need any threading
infrastructure.
cheers
andrew
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
