MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <ec498c3d-5f2b-48ec-b989-5561c8aa2024@illuminatedcomputing.com>
 <85ac7f0e-d95f-4377-ade0-8941fd328012@eisentraut.org>
 <CA+renyUazgR-hB_6RY60n23L0y-n_h9G1AappZmPENO0k5pL1g@mail.gmail.com>
 <7d63ddfa-c735-4dfe-8c7a-4f1e2a621058@eisentraut.org>
 <CA+renyVXg5pV84wQnGQuK8-=qoKw3BiBgQzesxM_LkcxxWmYjA@mail.gmail.com>
 <e59d218a-ae49-490f-ae6f-86c12f35d3c3@eisentraut.org>
 <CA+renyWKOj5=rMmQmJcbybu-Vdomxdp=eJ93kp76AgmQKYdfiQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <4606deaa-7d65-4f22-8a78-356c3180be9d@eisentraut.org>
 <CA+renyUhuXB2nTVCMREXew9E4DZOnFxQNjME5bcw91+k72Bosg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+renyWUCSyTMn3s03kviEN-oaVrJP-QkDQCLNfaY=MHV5QEiQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+renyV4tWU2d=n9_v=XNPHbZfNqqLokzd-Xt78M-zLd+46ubA@mail.gmail.com>
 <53f1c094-3c29-4ef6-a9bd-dc2e7894ceb0@eisentraut.org>
 <CA+renyUSgqXpjj+vV7w+wirPB49VQFrmPjVT_s04JmZSOPNNsQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <b2ecbf9f-797f-433d-953f-3c848cde5a1c@eisentraut.org>
 <CA+renyX-eV+2hFUaZg3BSREqLE7dh+LoWm7ZqhFAiGsirjjtRQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <4126231.1776622202@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CA+renyVdyBcLzh2sFWUJ44A+N+7qL=f7rAyDOqFsTHTDb5q=SA@mail.gmail.com>
 <260137.1776695634@sss.pgh.pa.us>
In-Reply-To: <260137.1776695634@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Paul A Jungwirth <pj@illuminatedcomputing.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2026 08:48:31 -0700
Message-ID: 
 <CA+renyXfWeQ71YYWPAuMvpVNztMtv2rW62fwzo=F_h6g9JjT+g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: SQL:2011 Application Time Update & Delete
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org>, Chao Li <li.evan.chao@gmail.com>,
	PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CA%2BrenyXfWeQ71YYWPAuMvpVNztMtv2rW62fwzo%3DF_h6g9JjT%2Bg%40mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Apr 20, 2026 at 7:33=E2=80=AFAM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
> > I was curious why execSRF.c uses `rsinfo.isDone !=3D ExprMultipleResult=
`
> > for the finalize parameter, because I don't think a SRF should ever
> > return ExprSingleResult, right? So I guess it is just to be cautious.
> > Makes sense. I followed that approach.
>
> It's been awhile, but I think these specs were set with the intention
> that if a plain function were somehow called as a SRF, it would act as
> though it were a SRF returning one row.  We haven't quite reached that
> with this patch --- I think it'd be an infinite loop as
> ExecForPortionOfLeftovers() stands.  I'm content with the way things
> are though, given that it should always be the case that special
> privileges are needed to mark a function as being a
> withoutPortionProcs function.
>
> But speaking of infinite loops, should this one contain a
> CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS call?  It's hard to conceive of a case where
> the value would be broken down finely enough for that to be a
> problem, but ...

A rangetype could only loop 0-2 times; a multirange 0-1. So I don't
think we need it. Eventually user-defined types could loop more, but a
design that inserts many records every time you change something seems
like a bad idea. Maybe I would add it anyway just out of caution, but
I suspect it's excessive.

Yours,

--=20
Paul              ~{:-)
pj@illuminatedcomputing.com