Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
> Are we really sure that this isn't a solution in search of a problem?
The need for value-per-call is real (examples mentioned down-thread) and
was anticipated from day one of the SRF implementation (in fact the
first patch I wrote was value-per-call, not materialize). But when we
realized that value-per-call was not going to work very well for any PL
*except* C-functions, we switched to SFRM_Materialize as the only
supported mode, with SFRM_ValuePerCall left as a to-be-coded-later
option (see SetFunctionReturnMode in execnodes.h).
Personally I think it is worth having SFRM_ValuePerCall even if only C
functions can make use of it.
Joe