From: | "Pavel Stehule" <pavel(dot)stehule(at)hotmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us |
Cc: | jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Proposal: TABLE functions |
Date: | 2007-02-09 17:22:09 |
Message-ID: | BAY114-F385390560C897143BEBF04F99C0@phx.gbl |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> >> I thought you said this was just syntactic sugar for capabilities we
> >> already had?
>
> > My mistake. I am sorry. I have to store somewhere flag. One bit, which
> > signalise "don't use OUT arguments as function's parameters".
>
>Huh? What exactly is the meaning of the arguments then?
>
>It sounds to me like this might be better thought of as a new
>proargmode value, but I'm quite unsure what you're talking about ...
>
My basic idea was:
CREATE FUNCTION aaa(IN a1, OUT a, OUT b)
RETURNS SETOF RECORD AS $$
..
is similar
CREATE FUNCTION aaa(IN a1)
RETURNS SETOF RECORD AS $$
from executor perspective there isn't any difference. But PL languages have
to create only IN variables. It's protection before identifier's name
colision. With special flag I don't need any changes in executor. And small
change in PL compile rutines. Special proargmode can be solution too. I
don't need new column in pg_proc, but have to modify executor and need more
changes in output rutines in PL.
I'll go on the way to spec. proargmode. It's good idea.
Thank You
Pavel Stehule
_________________________________________________________________
Emotikony a pozadi programu MSN Messenger ozivi vasi konverzaci.
http://messenger.msn.cz/
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2007-02-09 17:29:12 | Re: HOT for PostgreSQL 8.3 |
Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2007-02-09 17:08:52 | Re: HOT for PostgreSQL 8.3 |