On Wed, 2005-10-26 at 15:45 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Mario Splivalo <mario(dot)splivalo(at)mobart(dot)hr> writes:
> > Wo-ha, makes perfect sense. So, I'd go by with declaring the rec as
> > varchar, instead as of a record. Wich is what I should do in the first
> > place.
>
> Or just return the correct field out of it.
>
> RETURN NEXT returnValue.fieldname;
>
> I think you may have to do it this way because the FOR loop wants a
> record variable.
Yes, you're right. Funny implementation of the FOR loop :)
Mike