From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Florian Pflug <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org> |
Cc: | Oliver Jowett <oliver(at)opencloud(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Lukas Eder <lukas(dot)eder(at)gmail(dot)com>, rsmogura <rsmogura(at)softperience(dot)eu>, pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Fwd: [JDBC] Weird issues when reading UDT from stored function |
Date: | 2011-02-16 15:23:43 |
Message-ID: | 24907.1297869823@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-jdbc |
Florian Pflug <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org> writes:
> Hm, I've browsed through the code and it seems that the current behaviour
> was implemented on purpose.
Yes, it's 100% intentional. The idea is to allow function authors to
use OUT-parameter notation (in particular, the convention of assigning
to a named variable to set the result) without forcing them into the
overhead of returning a record when all they want is to return a scalar.
So a single OUT parameter is *supposed* to work just like a function
that does "returns whatever" without any OUT parameters.
Even if you think this was a bad choice, which I don't, it's far too
late to change it.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2011-02-16 15:25:08 | Re: Fix for Index Advisor related hooks |
Previous Message | Ibrar Ahmed | 2011-02-16 15:16:03 | Re: [HACKERS] reviewers needed! |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | RW Shore | 2011-02-16 16:25:47 | Array of box not supported? |
Previous Message | Florian Pflug | 2011-02-16 13:36:49 | Re: Fwd: [JDBC] Weird issues when reading UDT from stored function |