| From: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Joel Jacobson <joel(at)trustly(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Marko Tiikkaja <marko(at)joh(dot)to>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: PL/pgSQL 1.2 |
| Date: | 2014-09-04 12:40:33 |
| Message-ID: | CAFj8pRC+QUHrp2hCmi25U=Ao3qS3DZ_r1Lpad0kiqucgYh70iQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
2014-09-04 14:37 GMT+02:00 Joel Jacobson <joel(at)trustly(dot)com>:
>
>
> On 4 sep 2014, at 11:42, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> 2014-09-04 11:22 GMT+02:00 Joel Jacobson <joel(at)trustly(dot)com>:
>
>> The point was, RETURNS returns 1 while RETURNS SETOF returns 0 .. n.
>>
>
> no RETURNS return "VALUE" (it is not a row) .. and in combination with
> SELECT - value will be a row. RETURNS SETOF returns rows
>
>
> I intentionally excluded the data type of what is returned.
> 1 "VALUE" vs 0...n "VALUES"
> Do you still fail to see the point 1 "VALUE" is special in the context of
> what a function returns?
>
sorry, I don't understand .. for me SRF functions are absolutly different
monsters than scalar, array or composite function - so its impossible to
compare it.
Pavel
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2014-09-04 12:49:22 | Re: Escaping from blocked send() reprised. |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2014-09-04 12:39:59 | Re: xslt_process deprecated? |