Re: modifying the tbale function

Joe Conway wrote:
> 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.
>


Yeah, makes plenty of sense for C funcs. I don't think there's an 
argument about that. But for that we don't need any threading 
infrastructure.

cheers

andrew