Re: Fwd: [JDBC] Weird issues when reading UDT from stored function

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Florian Pflug <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org>
Cc: Oliver Jowett <oliver(at)opencloud(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Lukas Eder <lukas(dot)eder(at)gmail(dot)com>, rsmogura <rsmogura(at)softperience(dot)eu>, pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Fwd: [JDBC] Weird issues when reading UDT from stored function
Date: 2011-02-16 15:23:43
Message-ID: 24907.1297869823@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-jdbc

Florian Pflug <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org> writes:
> Hm, I've browsed through the code and it seems that the current behaviour
> was implemented on purpose.

Yes, it's 100% intentional. The idea is to allow function authors to
use OUT-parameter notation (in particular, the convention of assigning
to a named variable to set the result) without forcing them into the
overhead of returning a record when all they want is to return a scalar.
So a single OUT parameter is *supposed* to work just like a function
that does "returns whatever" without any OUT parameters.

Even if you think this was a bad choice, which I don't, it's far too
late to change it.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2011-02-16 15:25:08 Re: Fix for Index Advisor related hooks
Previous Message Ibrar Ahmed 2011-02-16 15:16:03 Re: [HACKERS] reviewers needed!

Browse pgsql-jdbc by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message RW Shore 2011-02-16 16:25:47 Array of box not supported?
Previous Message Florian Pflug 2011-02-16 13:36:49 Re: Fwd: [JDBC] Weird issues when reading UDT from stored function