Re: returning SETOF RECORD

Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Dunno. Was hoping someone else had an idea. It'd certainly be nice
> to have some way of calling functions like this without specifying the
> shape of the return value, but I doubt there's a way to make that work
> without a lot of new infrastructure. For example, if a function could
> be called at the point where we need to know the record shape with a
> special flag that says "just tell me what kind of record you're going
> to return" and then called again at execution time to actually produce
> the results, that would be nifty.

I think you're confusing these functions with the kind that specify
their own output rowtype --- which we *can* handle, via a list of OUT
parameters. In these cases, the entire point is that the user has to
specify what SQL rowtype he wants out of the conversion.

regards, tom lane