| From: | Michael Fuhr <mike(at)fuhr(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Yves Vindevogel <yves(dot)vindevogel(at)implements(dot)be> |
| Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Stored Procedure |
| Date: | 2005-11-23 05:05:17 |
| Message-ID: | 20051123050517.GA49008@winnie.fuhr.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Tue, Nov 22, 2005 at 11:17:41PM +0100, Yves Vindevogel wrote:
> But this does not work without the second line, right ?
What second line? Instead of returning a specific composite type
a function can return RECORD or SETOF RECORD; in these cases the
query must provide a column definition list.
> BTW, the thing returned is not a record. It's a bunch of fields, not a
> complete record or fields of multiple records.
What distinction are you making between a record and a bunch of
fields? What exactly would you like the function to return?
> I'm not so sure it works.
Did you try it? If you did and it didn't work then please post
exactly what you tried and explain what happened and how that
differed from what you'd like.
--
Michael Fuhr
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Fuhr | 2005-11-23 05:13:14 | Re: Stored Procedure |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2005-11-23 04:53:16 | Re: Hardware/OS recommendations for large databases ( |