On 05/03/2012 09:43 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> 2012/5/3 Merlin Moncure<mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>:
>> On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 7:13 AM, Pavel Stehule<pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>>> (1 row)
>>>> This works the same indeed, just seems to be a hack, though a cool
>>>> one :)
>> Yeah -- the syntax isn't great, but IMO it's more generally usable
>> than what you're proposing because it's a scalar returning function
>> not a table expression. Another point is that the proposed 'like'
>> syntax (which I still think is great, just maybe not for conversions
>> from json) seems wedded to record types. The hstore trick should be
>> able to take a foo, set it all up and return it. How would that
>> work with like?
>>> few years back I proposed "anytypename" type
>>> with this feature, you can has some clean and more readable call
>>> SELECT * FROM populate_record(test, ...)
>> that would be great IMO.
> I'll try propose it again - implementation should not be hard
You guys seem to be taking the original proposal off into the weeds. I
have often wanted to be able to use LIKE in type expressions, and I'd
like to see exactly that implemented.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2012-05-03 14:13:53|
|Subject: Re: ALTER DATABASE and datallowconn |
|Previous:||From: Pavel Stehule||Date: 2012-05-03 13:43:23|
|Subject: Re: How hard would it be to support LIKE in return
declaration of generic record function calls ?|