Re: Proposal: anonymous composite types for Table Functions

From: Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>
To: Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Proposal: anonymous composite types for Table Functions
Date: 2002-07-26 06:12:05
Message-ID: 3D40E835.6040601@joeconway.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches

Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> Or you could "parse" the function by retrieving the first row from the it
> and assuming that that's the function definition?
>

There are a number of reasons why I don't think this is workable, but
foremost, what happens if the function has side-effects, i.e. actually
alters data somehow?

Joe

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Celestino I. Olalo Jr. 2002-07-26 07:36:31 postgres on Linux SH3
Previous Message Christopher Kings-Lynne 2002-07-26 05:49:04 Re: Which casts should be implicit

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Rijndael AES Cipher 2002-07-26 07:38:46 Patch for pt_BR (libpq) - part two
Previous Message Rod Taylor 2002-07-26 01:45:01 GET DIAGNOSTICS example