From: | Tim Bunce <Tim(dot)Bunce(at)pobox(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Tim Bunce <Tim(dot)Bunce(at)pobox(dot)com>, "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Status of plperl inter-sp calling |
Date: | 2010-01-06 23:31:31 |
Message-ID: | 20100106233131.GV2505@timac.local |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jan 06, 2010 at 11:41:46AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> > Next question: what do we do if a direct-called function calls
> > return_next()? That at least must surely take effect in the caller's
> > context - the callee won't have anywhere to stash the the results at all.
>
> Whatever do you mean by "take effect in the caller's context"? I surely
> hope it's not "return the row to the caller's caller, who likely isn't
> expecting anything of the kind".
>
> I suspect Tim will just answer that he isn't going to try to
> short-circuit the call path for set-returning functions.
For 8.5 I don't think I'll even attempt direct inter-plperl-calls.
I'll just do a nicely-sugared wrapper around spi_exec_prepared().
Either via import, as I outlined earlier, or Garick Hamlin's suggestion
of attributes - which is certainly worth exploring.
Tim.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David E. Wheeler | 2010-01-06 23:36:30 | Re: Status of plperl inter-sp calling |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2010-01-06 23:22:57 | Re: Use of PG_VERSION |