| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)hotmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: plpgsql TABLE patch |
| Date: | 2007-09-26 02:15:28 |
| Message-ID: | 11415.1190772928@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> wrote:
> To review, Pavel Stehule submitted a proposal and patch to add support
> for "table functions" a few months back:
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2007-02/msg00318.php
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2007-05/msg00054.php
> Pavel proposed two basically independent features:
> (1) RETURN TABLE syntax sugar for PL/PgSQL
> (2) RETURNS TABLE (...) syntax sugar for CREATE FUNCTION
I believe that (1) is now committed (renamed to RETURN QUERY),
but what is the status of (2)?
Personally I won't cry if this doesn't make it into 8.3, particularly
since there was some disagreement about it. But if you intend to make
it happen, the days grow short. Very short.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Euler Taveira de Oliveira | 2007-09-26 03:29:10 | Re: top for postgresql (ptop?) |
| Previous Message | Luke Lonergan | 2007-09-26 00:25:04 | Re: top for postgresql (ptop?) |