Philip Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > My theory is that if such a piece of code gets a performance gain, then the > code is probably worth including, assuming that the function manager does > not need to be butchered to achieve the desired goal. Does that sound > reasonable?
Some real results would certainly bolster your case. > So the obvious question is - in the opinion of people who know the code, > can a function-result-cache be implemented with a lifetime of a single > statement, without butchering the function manager? I'd suggest trying to make it a function call handler. Look at the way Peter did "SECURITY DEFINER" functions for inspiration. regards, tom lane ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]