From: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: return query/composite types |
Date: | 2009-02-20 20:26:54 |
Message-ID: | b42b73150902201226v28a81f38kd2122f8fcf356f89@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 3:25 PM, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 3:00 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>>> create table foo(a int, b int);
>>> postgres=# create function rfoo() returns setof foo as $$ begin return
>>> query select foo from foo; end; $$ language plpgsql;
>>
>> Use "select * from ..." instead.
>
> Yeah...I was thinking maybe that shouldn't be required:
> 1. it's illogical and conflicts with regular non 'returns query'
> semantics (declare foo, assign, return)
> 2. if 'foo' is result of set returning function (like unnest), you
> need to make extra subquery to prevent that function from executing
> lots of extra times.
> e.g.
> select unnest(foo) from <something> will unnest the set six times if
er,
select (unnest(foo)).* from <something> will unnest the set six times if
^^^
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-02-20 20:55:25 | Re: return query/composite types |
Previous Message | Merlin Moncure | 2009-02-20 20:25:55 | Re: return query/composite types |