From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "Pavel Stehule" <pavel(dot)stehule(at)hotmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Table function support |
Date: | 2007-04-10 22:17:14 |
Message-ID: | 4221.1176243434@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-patches |
"Pavel Stehule" <pavel(dot)stehule(at)hotmail(dot)com> writes:
> this patch allows using SQL2003 syntax for set returning functions. It is
> based on using new type of argmode - PROARGMODE_TABLE.
I've been looking at this, and my feeling is that we should drop the
PROARGMODE_TABLE business and just define RETURNS TABLE(x int, y int)
as exactly equivalent to RETURNS SETOF RECORD with x and y treated as
OUT parameters. There isn't any advantage to distinguishing the cases
that outweighs breaking client code that looks at pg_proc.proargmodes.
I don't believe that the SQL spec prevents us from exposing those
parameter names to PL functions, especially since none of our PLs are
in the standard at all.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2007-04-10 23:50:23 | Re: [HACKERS] Fix mdsync never-ending loop problem |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-04-10 21:49:05 | Re: [HACKERS] Fix mdsync never-ending loop problem |