| From: | Joel Jacobson <joel(at)trustly(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Marko Tiikkaja <marko(at)joh(dot)to>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: PL/pgSQL 1.2 |
| Date: | 2014-09-04 12:37:34 |
| Message-ID: | -8928095228137475260@unknownmsgid |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 4 sep 2014, at 11:42, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
2014-09-04 11:22 GMT+02:00 Joel Jacobson <joel(at)trustly(dot)com>:
>
> The point was, RETURNS returns 1 while RETURNS SETOF returns 0 .. n.
>
no RETURNS return "VALUE" (it is not a row) .. and in combination with
SELECT - value will be a row. RETURNS SETOF returns rows
I intentionally excluded the data type of what is returned.
1 "VALUE" vs 0...n "VALUES"
Do you still fail to see the point 1 "VALUE" is special in the context of
what a function returns?
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2014-09-04 12:39:59 | Re: xslt_process deprecated? |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2014-09-04 12:37:08 | Re: Join push-down support for foreign tables |