On Wed, 2005-02-02 at 23:22 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> writes:
> > neilc=# select a, (select * from abc) from abc;
> > ERROR: subquery must return only one column
> > Is there a reason we can't treat a subselect in the target list as
> > returning a composite type?
> Given the 8.0 infrastructure for unnamed record types it might be
> possible to do that; it was surely never possible before. Whether it's
> a good idea is another question. The syntax you are showing is designed
> to return a scalar. It will (and should) barf on multiple rows as well
> as multiple columns.
Right, the point is, that is does not, if said srf-function is written
in say, C.
However, this is somewhat similar to the WITH LATERAL clause previously
discussed in connection with UNNEST and multisets, so perhaps it's not
such a bad idea after all?
> > For that matter, is this behavior also intentional?
> > neilc=# select a, foo_abc2() FROM abc;
> > ERROR: set-valued function called in context that cannot accept a set
> > CONTEXT: PL/pgSQL function "foo_abc2" line 1 at return next
> It's an implementation restriction in plpgsql: we didn't make it support
> the old-style SRF API. I'm unconvinced that it's worth fixing
> considering that this whole behavior (SRFs in the targetlist) is
> regards, tom lane
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
John Hansen <john(at)geeknet(dot)com(dot)au>
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2005-02-03 04:49:42|
|Subject: Re: pg_dump bug in 7.3.9 with sequences |
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2005-02-03 04:22:24|
|Subject: Re: subselects in the target list |