Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, 2008-02-27 at 15:07 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Negative refcount does not prove that the SRF itself hasn't
>> still got a pointer to the tupdesc.

> That sounds quite bizarre. The SRF has already finished execution at
> this point, so keeping a pointer to the tupledesc around would only make
> sense if you wanted to use that tupledesc on a *subsequent* invocation
> of the SRF.

Hmm ... actually I was worried about it being embedded in the returned
tuplestore, but I see tuplestore doesn't currently use a tupdesc at all,
so maybe it isn't that big a problem.

                        regards, tom lane

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?


Reply via email to