| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Pavel Stehule" <pavel(dot)stehule(at)hotmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Proposal: TABLE functions |
| Date: | 2007-02-09 15:02:09 |
| Message-ID: | 24640.1171033329@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Pavel Stehule" <pavel(dot)stehule(at)hotmail(dot)com> writes:
> it can by more simple than I though. I need only one flag, and if its true
> then I don't create language variables for OUT params. But I need one next
> column in pg_proc.
I thought you said this was just syntactic sugar for capabilities we
already had?
> Currently a lot of columns in pg_proc is bool. What about one binary columns
> for other options? I hope so next versions can support autonomous
> transaction, which need flag too.
I think stored procedures of that sort aren't functions at all, and
probably don't belong in pg_proc.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2007-02-09 15:11:18 | Re: Variable length varlena headers redux |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2007-02-09 15:01:17 | Re: [HACKERS] plpgsql, return can contains any expression |