From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Markus Schaber <schabios(at)logi-track(dot)com> |
Cc: | Gavin Sherry <swm(at)linuxworld(dot)com(dot)au>, Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [JDBC] Where are we on stored procedures? |
Date: | 2005-02-25 18:28:06 |
Message-ID: | 6954.1109356086@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-jdbc |
Markus Schaber <schabios(at)logi-track(dot)com> writes:
> Tom Lane schrieb:
>> given the improved support in 8.0 for anonymous record types, we could
>> in theory have the backend invent a record type on-the-fly to match
>> whatever list of OUT parameters a particular function has.)
> It would not be necessarily on the fly, at least in the first step we
> possibly get away with declaraing the returned tuples at creation time
> and implicitly creating those tuple types. The declaration could be like
> "returns (touchedrows int, somethingelse datetime), setof (article int,
> description text)" for a function/method that has two resultsets, one of
> those with always one row.
The advantage of not explicitly creating the rowtypes is that we don't
need to worry about choosing nonconflicting names for them. So I think
I'd go down the anonymous-rowtype path even in the first cut.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-02-25 18:30:57 | Re: idea for concurrent seqscans |
Previous Message | Jeff Davis | 2005-02-25 18:26:55 | Re: idea for concurrent seqscans |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Kris Jurka | 2005-02-25 19:05:56 | Re: setFetchSize question |
Previous Message | Markus Schaber | 2005-02-25 18:21:02 | Re: [JDBC] Where are we on stored procedures? |