Re: proposal: table functions and plpgsql

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

>
>> *) seems cleaner to separate in/out variables so add/drop function are
>> symmetric.
>
> they are kind of symmetric already :)
>
> hannu=# drop function outsetof2py(n integer, OUT i integer, OUT j
> integer);
> DROP FUNCTION
>
>
>> Also,
>> What about:
>>
>> CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION foo(m integer)
>> RETURNS TABLE (a integer, b integer) AS $$
>> -- DECLARE r foo; -- make alias of r to foo optional
>> BEGIN
>> FOR i IN 1..m LOOP
>> foo.a := i; foo.b := i + 1;
>> [...]
>>
>> or
>> RETURNS TABLE r(a integer, b integer) AS $$
>
> rather "..FUNCTION foo(...) ... RETURNS TABLE r(..." as else it will be
> hard to do recursive functions.
>
>> merlin
>>
>
>