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.


---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

Reply via email to