From: | Cultural Sublimation <cultural_sublimation(at)yahoo(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Cannot declare record members NOT NULL |
Date: | 2007-09-12 20:39:44 |
Message-ID: | 64275.95611.qm@web63409.mail.re1.yahoo.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Hi again,
> However, your answer did give me an idea: instead of declaring
> "get_movies_t" as a record, I declare it as dummy table, and return
> that (see code at the end).
> This works, though it is *very* ugly. Any other ideas?
My apologies, but it turns out that this solution doesn't work after
all. Postgresql still insists that movie_id and movie_name are NULL,
though I explicitly declared them as NOT NULL:
> CREATE TABLE get_movies_t
> (
> movie_id int4 NOT NULL,
> movie_name text NOT NULL
> );
>
> CREATE FUNCTION get_movies ()
> RETURNS SETOF get_movies_t
> LANGUAGE sql STABLE
> AS
> $$
> SELECT movie_id, movie_name FROM movies;
> $$;
This bug seems to obvious to have been generally missed. I have to
wonder if it is not a bug in my particular build of Postgresql -- I am
running version 8.2.4 straight from the Ubuntu repositories (package
version 8.2.4-1~edgy1).
Could someone else try the code and check if Postgresql returns
the correct type?
Thanks,
C.S.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Luggage? GPS? Comic books?
Check out fitting gifts for grads at Yahoo! Search
http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=oni_on_mail&p=graduation+gifts&cs=bz
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Uwe C. Schroeder | 2007-09-12 20:45:14 | Re: Cannot declare record members NOT NULL |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-09-12 20:31:18 | Re: problems with large table |