>From my experience, it *** is *** impossible. I would be glad if somebody
told me different, but to my understanding the doc is wrong here.

Andreas

>>     Currently  only  'null'  and  'single  value'.  The  executor
>>     doesn't  accept anything else for non-sql language functions.
>>     PL functions are treated by the executor like 'C'  functions.
>
>Actually what I understood from the docs was thatit is 'terribly complicated' and 'beyond the
>scope of this tutorial', but not impossible ;)





Thu, 19 Mar 1998 16:57:19 +-100
Zeugswetter Andreas <andreas.zeugswetter@telecom.at>
AW: [HACKERS] Re: PL/PgSQL discussion

Andreas Zeugswetter wrote:
>
> >From my experience, it *** is *** impossible. I would be glad if somebody
> told me different, but to my understanding the doc is wrong here.
>
> Andreas
>
> >>     Currently  only  'null'  and  'single  value'.  The  executor
> >>     doesn't  accept anything else for non-sql language functions.
> >>     PL functions are treated by the executor like 'C'  functions.
> >
> >Actually what I understood from the docs was thatit is 'terribly complicated' and 'beyond the
> >scope of this tutorial', but not impossible ;)

    I  have  been thinking about that quite a time and when David
    Gould  said  'looks  like  PL  functions  want  to  _be_  SQL
    functions',  my  first  action was scratching my head. Then I
    thought it would blow up the parser and executor with  things
    they wheren't designed for and dropped these thoughts.

    Anyway  -  thanks  David  -  it  was  a  push  into the right
    direction.  Not that I think PL functions should become  real
    SQL  functions  processed  by  the  backends  main parser and
    executor. But they might become  something  between  'C'  and
    'SQL'.

    The executor could check in ExecMakeFunctionResult() that the
    function  is  a   PL   function   (simply   by   looking   at
    fcache->func.fn_plhandler).   So  it  is  possible  that  the
    Executor    treats     PL     functions     somewhat     like
    postquel_function().

    My  PL/pgSQL is now at the state, that I can write functions.
    I'll leave triggers for later and take a look if that all  is
    possible.   Would be really nice to enable tuples and sets of
    tuples as PL return types and finally beeing able to do a

      DECLARE ret    EMP%ROWTYPE;
      BEGIN
        ...
        FOR ret IN SELECT ... LOOP
          RETURN ret AND RESUME;
        ENDLOOP;
        ...
      END;

    from PL/pgSQL. Well, returning and resume later  might  cause
    some trouble with SPI, but let's see.


Jan

--

#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me.                                  #
#======================================== jwieck@debis.com (Jan Wieck) #



Thu, 19 Mar 1998 18:10:46 +0100 (MET)
jwieck@debis.com (Jan Wieck)
Re: AW: [HACKERS] Re: PL/PgSQL discussion

I wrote:
>
>
> Andreas Zeugswetter wrote:
> >
> > >From my experience, it *** is *** impossible. I would be glad if somebody
> > told me different, but to my understanding the doc is wrong here.
> >
> > Andreas
> >
> > >>     Currently  only  'null'  and  'single  value'.  The  executor
> > >>     doesn't  accept anything else for non-sql language functions.
> > >>     PL functions are treated by the executor like 'C'  functions.
> > >
> > >Actually what I understood from the docs was thatit is 'terribly complicated' and 'beyond the
> > >scope of this tutorial', but not impossible ;)
>
>     The executor could check in ExecMakeFunctionResult() that the
>     function  is  a   PL   function   (simply   by   looking   at
>     fcache->func.fn_plhandler).   So  it  is  possible  that  the
>     Executor    treats     PL     functions     somewhat     like
>     postquel_function().

    That  way  it might be possible. The call interface to the PL
    handler must be extended and the PL handler  cannot  use  SPI
    any  more.   The memory management of SPI makes it impossible
    to return from the function and  resume  later.  Leaving  the
    function  while  connected  to SPI would possibly corrupt the
    SPI stack.

    And the handling of functions returning tuples  is  really  a
    mess.   The executor calls postquel_function() first to get a
    tuple table slot, and then again for each attribute used  via
    nested dot expression. It's up to the function itself then to
    create the correct projection from the functions  targetlist.

    And there must be something in the parser/optimizer too.  For
    an 'sql' function, the fcache has a prepared tuple table slot
    on the actual call. But for 'C' or 'PL' functions, it is NULL
    on the call to ExecMakeFunctionResult().

    For now, I'll let the PL interface as is and  try  to  finish
    PL/pgSQL  in  the trigger area. Someday I'll get back to here
    and give it a real try to enable tuples and  sets  as  return
    from  functions.  That  all is far too much work for me right
    now cause the next 4 weeks I have to do some homework (bought
    a new house and that's built now).


Jan

--

#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me.                                  #
#======================================== jwieck@debis.com (Jan Wieck) #



Fri, 20 Mar 1998 14:50:03 +0100 (MET)
jwieck@debis.com (Jan Wieck)
Re: AW: [HACKERS] Re: PL/PgSQL discussion