From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "Joshua b(dot) Jore" <josh(at)greentechnologist(dot)org> |
Cc: | pgsql-novice(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: SETOF / SETS_FIXED? |
Date: | 2002-02-05 17:34:46 |
Message-ID: | 26001.1012930486@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-novice |
"Joshua b. Jore" <josh(at)greentechnologist(dot)org> writes:
> While I was poking throug the source to figure this out I ran
> across the SETS_FIXED declaration. It looks like that's been set on my
> OpenBSD installation but isn't in the stock 7.1.3.
I would certainly hope that SETS_FIXED is NOT set in *any* distribution.
That covers some code we disabled years ago because it was broken;
I see little prospect that it will ever be resurrected.
The behavior you want is not a "set" in Berkeley's terminology,
anyway. That had to do with fields (attributes) whose values were
actually references to functions to call to produce the implied
set-of-rows value.
AFAIR, the existing support for functions-returning-SETOF only works
for SQL-language functions, or suitably coded C functions.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Patrick Hatcher | 2002-02-05 21:32:32 | user-defined not working |
Previous Message | Joshua b. Jore | 2002-02-05 16:57:24 | SETOF / SETS_FIXED? |