Re: TABLE-function patch vs plpgsql

2008/7/18 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
> "Pavel Stehule" <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> Maybe we can use some well defined implicit record, maybe NEW (or
>> RESULT, ROW_RESULT, ROW, TABLE_ROW, ...) like trigger - some like
>
> That sounds like exactly the sort of kluge-solution that I didn't
> want to get involved with ...
>
> Anyway, the core feature is in, and we still have several months
> before 8.4 feature freeze to debate how plpgsql ought to interact
> with it.
>

I agree.
Regards

p.s.

other solution - using referenced types

declare foorec fcename%ROWTYPE -- allows only current fce name
fooscalar fcename.col%TYPE

regards
Pavel Stehule

and many thanks for commit this patch

> regards, tom lane
>