Re: [HACKERS] Progress report: buffer refcount bugs and SQL functions
От | wieck@debis.com (Jan Wieck) |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] Progress report: buffer refcount bugs and SQL functions |
Дата | |
Msg-id | m11UAnj-0003kzC@orion.SAPserv.Hamburg.dsh.de обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] Progress report: buffer refcount bugs and SQL functions (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] Progress report: buffer refcount bugs and SQL functions
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote: > > wieck@debis.com (Jan Wieck) writes: > > Tom Lane wrote: > > What we really need to make functions-returning-sets work properly is > an implementation somewhat like aggregate functions. We need to make > a list of all the Iter nodes present in a targetlist and cycle through > the values returned by each in a methodical fashion (run the rightmost > through its full cycle, then advance the next-to-rightmost one value, > run the rightmost through its cycle again, etc etc). Also there needs > to be an understanding of the hierarchy when an Iter appears in the > arguments of another Iter's function. (You cycle the upper one for > *each* set of arguments created by cycling its sub-Iters.) Shouldn't a function returning a SET of tuples cause a proper join? Jan -- #======================================================================# # It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. # # Let's break this rule - forgive me. # #========================================= wieck@debis.com (Jan Wieck) #
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: