| From: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> |
| Cc: | Neil Conway <nconway(at)klamath(dot)dyndns(dot)org>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: RFC: listing lock status |
| Date: | 2002-07-19 02:31:29 |
| Message-ID: | 3D377A01.5060907@joeconway.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> Out of interest - why do SRFs need to have a table or view defined that
> matches their return type? Why can't you just create the type for the
> function and set it up as a dependency?
>
The only current way to create a composite type (and hence have it for
the function to reference) is to define a table or view.
We have discussed the need for a stand-alone composite type, but I think
Tom favors doing that as part of a larger project, namely changing the
association of pg_attributes to pg_type instead of pg_class (if I
understand/remember it correctly).
Joe
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2002-07-19 03:08:42 | Re: RFC: listing lock status |
| Previous Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2002-07-19 02:02:52 | Re: RFC: listing lock status |