On Tue, 2008-02-26 at 03:13 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > "It's OK in the built-in SRFs" is disastrously different from "It's OK".
Right, I never said that, I was just commenting on your view that the predominant use-case for SRFs is returning refcounted tupdescs. You didn't comment on my proposed solution (FreeTupleDesc() iff refcount == -1). ISTM that we *need* to free the TupleDesc in at least some cases, in order to defend against the practice of explicitly allocating the TupleDesc in the per-query context. -Neil ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
