Re: proposal: table functions and plpgsql

On Wed, 2008-05-21 at 23:06 +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> 2008/5/21 Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)krosing(dot)net>:
> > On Wed, 2008-05-21 at 13:31 -0400, Merlin Moncure wrote:
> >> On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 1:28 PM, Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)krosing(dot)net> wrote:
> >> >> In my proposal I don't create any default variables. Result type is
> >> >> only virtual - I don't need write it to system directory. I thing it's
> >> >> better than using some specific predeclared type as RESULTTYPE OR
> >> >> RESULTSET.
> >> >
> >> > How is this different from using OUT params and RETURNS SETOF RECORD ?
> >>
> >> *) you reference output variables via rowtype (r.var vs. var)
> >
> > As I'm currently working on updating another pl (pl/python), I'd like to
> > know how will this affect get_call_result_type() defined in funcapi.h.
> > will there be an extra parameter for record name there ?
>
> no

why not ?

do you think that other pl languages won't need it ?

---------------
Hannu