Joe Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > John Gray wrote: >> Does this sound completely crazy?
> Not crazy at all. I asked the same question a few days ago: > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2002-08/msg01914.php I've been thinking more about this, and wondering if we should not only make the tupdesc available but rely more heavily on it than we do. Most of the C-coded functions do fairly substantial pushups to construct tupdescs that are just going to duplicate what nodeFunctionscan already has in its back pocket. They could save some time by just picking that up and using it. On the other hand, your experience yesterday with debugging a mismatched function declaration suggests that it's still a good idea to make the functions build the tupdesc they think they are returning. regards, tom lane ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
