Re: modifying the tbale function

Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> 
> Are we really sure that this isn't a solution in search of a problem?

The need for value-per-call is real (examples mentioned down-thread) and 
was anticipated from day one of the SRF implementation (in fact the 
first patch I wrote was value-per-call, not materialize). But when we 
realized that value-per-call was not going to work very well for any PL 
*except* C-functions, we switched to SFRM_Materialize as the only 
supported mode, with SFRM_ValuePerCall left as a to-be-coded-later 
option (see SetFunctionReturnMode in execnodes.h).

Personally I think it is worth having SFRM_ValuePerCall even if only C 
functions can make use of it.

Joe