Re: revised patch for PL/PgSQL table functions

Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> writes:
> I haven't really looked too closely at Neil plpgsql stuff, so I'm a
> bit concerned with the spin-up time I'd need to figure this out. But
> if Neil doesn't show up and volunteer between now and Saturday
> morning, I'll take a look.

I can do this -- I should hopefully be able to get it done by the end
of the weekend, but I can't make any promises.

I assume that an SRF returning 'RECORD' defined in PL/PgSQL would
still need to be called with a column definition list, right?

Given that it's about 4AM here and I just took a 30-sec look at Tom's
changes to the SRF code, forgive me if this is incorrect: I would
think that the PL/PgSQL func would examine ReturnSetInfo.expectedDesc
when processing a SETOF RECORD function, and use that to confirm that
the RECORD has the appropriate TupleDesc, right?

Cheers,

Neil

--
Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> || PGP Key ID: DB3C29FC