Tom Lane wrote: > I thought about that and didn't like it; it may simplify the simple case > but I think it actively gets in the way of less-simple cases. For > example, the FIRSTCALL code might generate some transient structures > along with ones that it wants to keep. Also, your recommended > pseudocode allows the author to write code between the end of the > FIRSTCALL branch and the PERCALL_SETUP call; that code will not execute > in a predictable context if we do it this way. > > I'm also not happy with the implied assumption that every call to the > function executes in the same transient context. That is true at the > moment but I'd just as soon not see it as a wired-in assumption.
Fair enough. I'll take a shot at the necessary changes (if you want me to). Is it OK to use fcinfo->flinfo->fn_mcxt as the long term memory context or is there a better choice? Is funcctx->multi_call_memory_ctx a suitable name in place of funcctx->fmctx? Joe ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
