Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Redundant explicit field name/types description while select from function with return type of record

From: Sam Mason <sam(at)samason(dot)me(dot)uk>
To: pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Redundant explicit field name/types description while select from function with return type of record
Date: 2008-03-28 16:52:33
Message-ID: 20080328165233.GZ6870@frubble.xen.chris-lamb.co.uk (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs
On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 01:43:25PM -0300, Euler Taveira de Oliveira wrote:
> Eugen(dot)Konkov(at)aldec(dot)com wrote:
> >a column definition list is required for functions returning "record"
> >It seems a BUG
> >
> I don't think so. We can say it is a missing feature. As stated in [1], 
> record types don't have a predefined structure -- they're placeholders. 

I was having a similar discussion with Gregory Stark about this and
hadn't realised that such small amounts of state was recorded with each
row.

> How do you know the row structure before hand? Its structure can be 
> changed on-the-fly.

Sorry, I don't understand this comment.  Could you elaborate?


  Sam

In response to

pgsql-bugs by date

Next:From: Eugen.KonkovDate: 2008-03-28 17:06:21
Subject: Re: BUG: wrong doc or wrong connectby?
Previous:From: Euler Taveira de OliveiraDate: 2008-03-28 16:43:25
Subject: Re: Redundant explicit field name/types description while select from function with return type of record

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group