| From: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alban Hertroys <dalroi(at)solfertje(dot)student(dot)utwente(dot)nl> |
| Cc: | Jon Smark <jon(dot)smark(at)yahoo(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Record with a field consisting of table rows |
| Date: | 2011-01-13 19:21:23 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTikaySpDmSjVM74v-ST_9ZcV2bDJoLtHJPKv688b@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
2011/1/13 Alban Hertroys <dalroi(at)solfertje(dot)student(dot)utwente(dot)nl>:
> On 13 Jan 2011, at 19:25, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>
>>> The above does work, thanks. There is however one drawback: the type
>>> associated with _page.users is now an array. Is there a way to make
>>> it a 'SETOF user_t'?
>>>
>>
>> no. PostgreSQL doesn't supports SET. Only arrays are supported.
>
>
> I'm not sure what you mean here, Postgres certainly _does_ support set-returning functions. Maybe you were referring to something in the particular context of the problem the OP is trying to solve?
>
The name of feature "SET RETURNED FUNC" doesn't mean so PostgreSQL
supports SET type in ANSI SQL sense.
Regards
Pavel Stehule
> It would be kind of bad if people Google for this topic and would come back with the wrong conclusion.
>
> Alban Hertroys
>
> --
> Screwing up is an excellent way to attach something to the ceiling.
>
>
> !DSPAM:1030,4d2f4de011871371264419!
>
>
>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alban Hertroys | 2011-01-13 19:21:30 | Re: Record with a field consisting of table rows |
| Previous Message | Alban Hertroys | 2011-01-13 19:09:13 | Re: Record with a field consisting of table rows |