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

Re: Table function support

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 (view raw or flat)
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

In response to

Responses

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2007-04-10 23:50:23
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Fix mdsync never-ending loop problem
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2007-04-10 21:49:05
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Fix mdsync never-ending loop problem

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