| From: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | C&SRF API patch (was Re: [HACKERS] revised sample SRF C function; proposed SRF API) |
| Date: | 2002-06-10 01:19:24 |
| Message-ID: | 3D03FE9C.2010403@joeconway.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> writes:
>>Is the approach in my patch still too ugly to allow a builtin SRF (set
>>the function return type to 0 in pg_proc.h, create a view and fix the
>>pg_proc entry during initdb)?
>
> Too ugly for my taste anyway ...
OK.
Here is a patch for Composite and Set returning function support. I made
two small changes to the API since last patch, which hopefully completes
the decoupling of composite function support from SRF specific support.
If there are no (further ;-)) objections, please apply. I'll send
another post with a patch for contrib/showguc.
Thanks,
Joe
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| funcapi.2002.06.09.2.patch | text/plain | 20.6 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joe Conway | 2002-06-10 01:27:39 | contrib/showguc (was Re: [HACKERS] revised sample SRF C function; proposed SRF API) |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-06-10 01:10:37 | Re: tuplesort: unexpected end of data |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joe Conway | 2002-06-10 01:27:39 | contrib/showguc (was Re: [HACKERS] revised sample SRF C function; proposed SRF API) |
| Previous Message | Dave Page | 2002-06-09 20:16:15 | Re: Patch for current_schemas to optionally include implicit schemas |