| From: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)hotmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: plpgsql TABLE patch |
| Date: | 2007-09-26 03:36:27 |
| Message-ID: | 1190777787.22117.15.camel@goldbach |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, 2007-25-09 at 22:15 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> I believe that (1) is now committed (renamed to RETURN QUERY),
> but what is the status of (2)?
>
> Personally I won't cry if this doesn't make it into 8.3, particularly
> since there was some disagreement about it. But if you intend to make
> it happen, the days grow short.
Sorry, my day job is currently taking up all my spare cycles :( So I
don't think I'll get a chance to wrap this up for 8.3.
My recollection is that the patch was okay as far as it went, but I'm
hesitant to add yet another alternative to the already complex set of
choices for returning composite types and sets from functions. If we
just make TABLE() syntax sugar for the existing OUT function stuff we
would avoid at least some of that complexity, but Pavel still prefers a
distinct proargmode, last I heard.
-Neil
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Satoshi Nagayasu | 2007-09-26 03:39:42 | Re: top for postgresql (ptop?) |
| Previous Message | Euler Taveira de Oliveira | 2007-09-26 03:29:10 | Re: top for postgresql (ptop?) |