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

Re: BUG #5272: PL/Python SELECT: return composite fields as dict, not str

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Steve White <swhite(at)aip(dot)de>
Cc: pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: BUG #5272: PL/Python SELECT: return composite fields as dict, not str
Date: 2010-01-12 02:31:57
Message-ID: 603c8f071001111831j5b05b57cs108d2792c390e26@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs
On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 11:41 AM, Steve White <swhite(at)aip(dot)de> wrote:
> I see nothing in the documentation about this
>        http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.4/static/plpython.html
> It only talks about passing composite types into and out of functions.
>
> This is an unpleasant discovery for those working to a deadline.  Perhaps a
> "limitations" section for the doc would be in order.  (You could also list
> the limitations of PL/Python regarding returning RECORD types.)

Maybe you could suggest some text, perhaps in the form of a context
diff against the current sgml files?

> But the best thing to do would be to fix it.

Doubtless.  Of course it will depend on whether anyone finds enough
round tuits.  Peter Eisentraut made some improvements to PL/python
array handling which will be in the next major release, but I am not
aware of anyone working on record types.  This is an all-volunteer
effort, so people tend to scratch their own itches.

> For backward compatibility, you might implement a switch that turns on the
> hierarchical interpretation of fields, and leave the current behaviour as
> the default.

I suspect we wouldn't bother with that.

...Robert

In response to

Responses

pgsql-bugs by date

Next:From: Adam MatanDate: 2010-01-12 10:20:04
Subject: Bug report: Wrong version in pg_config
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2010-01-12 00:12:45
Subject: Re: error after dropping column

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