| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Pavel Stehule" <pavel(dot)stehule(at)hotmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Table function support |
| Date: | 2007-04-10 22:17:14 |
| Message-ID: | 4221.1176243434@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-patches |
"Pavel Stehule" <pavel(dot)stehule(at)hotmail(dot)com> writes:
> this patch allows using SQL2003 syntax for set returning functions. It is
> based on using new type of argmode - PROARGMODE_TABLE.
I've been looking at this, and my feeling is that we should drop the
PROARGMODE_TABLE business and just define RETURNS TABLE(x int, y int)
as exactly equivalent to RETURNS SETOF RECORD with x and y treated as
OUT parameters. There isn't any advantage to distinguishing the cases
that outweighs breaking client code that looks at pg_proc.proargmodes.
I don't believe that the SQL spec prevents us from exposing those
parameter names to PL functions, especially since none of our PLs are
in the standard at all.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2007-04-10 23:50:23 | Re: [HACKERS] Fix mdsync never-ending loop problem |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-04-10 21:49:05 | Re: [HACKERS] Fix mdsync never-ending loop problem |