>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.
Reason for PROARGMODE_TABLE was protection before name's collision, and x,
and y are table attributies (not variables) and then we are protected before
collision. It's shortcut for
create function foo() returns setof record as ...
select * from foo() as (x int, y int);
Najdete si svou lasku a nove pratele na Match.com. http://www.msn.cz/
In response to
pgsql-patches by date
|Next:||From: Pavel Stehule||Date: 2007-04-11 07:16:17|
|Subject: Re: Table function support|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2007-04-11 06:52:41|
|Subject: Re: [HACKERS] CIC and deadlocks |