| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Hugo Mercier <hugo(dot)mercier(at)oslandia(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Detection of nested function calls |
| Date: | 2013-10-28 09:23:59 |
| Message-ID: | 20131028092359.GE5577@awork2.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2013-10-28 10:12:41 +0100, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> > I think we'd need another argument to CREATE FUNCTION like SERIALIZE
> > pointing to a function that that has to return data that can be stored
> > on disk. Deserialization would be up to individual functions.
> >
> > Depending on the specification this might turn out to be slightly
> > invasive, tuplestore/sort et al probably have to care...
> Then you need a functions than prepare a clone of unpacked data too.
Why? In those case we can (and should) just store the ondisk
representation.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
PS: Could you please try to trim the quoted emails a bit?
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Hugo Mercier | 2013-10-28 09:29:59 | Re: Detection of nested function calls |
| Previous Message | Dave Page | 2013-10-28 09:23:58 | Re: PostgreSQL Service on Windows does not start. ~ "is not a valid Win32 application" |