Neil Conway <neilc@samurai.com> writes:
> On Mon, 2008-02-25 at 21:00 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I find this part of the patch to be a seriously bad idea.
> AFAICS this is not true of any of the SRFs in the backend, which always
> return expendable tupdescs.
"It's OK in the built-in SRFs" is disastrously different from "It's OK".
It was never specified that SRFs had to return a free-able tupdesc,
so I think it's a lead pipe cinch that there are some out there that
don't. Nor would it be their fault if we change the specification.
regards, tom lane